NARASIMIAH Vs. VENKATAPPA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Section 4 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act for revision of the finding in Order Section No. 275 of 1954 on the file of the Munsiff of Doddaballapur that the petitioner though an agriculturist under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act cannot claim any relief under the Act and that therefore no finding on the first issue is necessary.

(2.) This revision petition came up for disposal before the Hon'ble Justice Sri K. N. Padmanabhiah and the learned Judge felt that the question

(3.) The facts necessary for the appreciation of the point raised in the case are as follows: The petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of certain money due on a mortgage deed dated 21-10-1948 executed by the respondents in his favour with costs and current interest. He alleged in his plaint that he was an agriculturist and the defendants were also agriculturists, both on the date of the suit transaction as well as on the date of the suit and that though the mortgage deed was ostensibly a usufructuary mortgage deed it was intended to be only a simple mortgage" deed, that the defendants continued to be in possession of the property mortgaged under the deed and therefore he was entitled to recover not only the principal amount but also the interest from the defendants. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to establish by adducing oral evidence that the transaction was intended to be only a simple mortgage and not an usufructuary mortgage deed. It was conceded that both the parties to the suit were agriculturists as defined under the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act. But it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to claim and get any relief in the hands of the Court in view of the fact that the suit was not one coming under any of the provisions of the sub-sections of Section 3 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act. It was on the other hand contended by the petitioner that so long as one of the parties to the suit was an agriculturist he was entitled to adduce oral evidence to establish what exactly is the true nature of the transaction under Section 5 of the Mysore. Agriculturists' Relief Act and the petitioner was therefore entitled to ask for a decree as prayed for in the suit. The learned Munsiff was of the opinion that there was no substance in the contention of the petitioner and that the suit did not fall under any of the sub-sections of Section 3 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act and rejected the contention of the petitioner. It is against this decision that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.