TAHSILDAR ANEKAL Vs. CHILAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tahsildar of Anekal and Sri Munivenkatappa, have, in this appeal, challenged the order of the learned single judge dated 26th Sept. 1980 passed in WP 2022/79.

(2.) The undisputed facts which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows :

(3.) After the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1976), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), came into force, the second appellant made an application before the first appellant under S. 4 (f) of the Act praying for an order directing the first respondent to put him in possession of the mortgaged properties, on the ground that the mortgage stood redeemed by the operation of S. 4 (f) of the Act. The second appellant claimed that he is a debtor as defined in S. 3 (c) of the Act as belonging to the weaker sections of the people. It is his case that notwithstanding the fad that a preliminary decree for redemption had been made in O.S. No. 706/50-51, the mortgage not having been redeemed, the same subsists, and that the liability thereunder is a debt as defined in S. 3 (b) of the Act. As the application of the second appellant was contested, the parties led evidence before the first appellant who had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said application. The first appellant made an order on 25-8-78 holding that the mortgage stands redeemed and directed delivery of possession of the mortgaged properties by the first respondent in favour of the second appellant. He also held that the second appellant belonged to weaker section of the people and he is therefore a debtor entitled to the protection under the Act. He further held that notwithstanding the existence of the preliminary decree for redemption the decretal amount is debt as defined in S. 3 (b) of the Act.