RAMEGOWDA Vs. SUB DIVL MAGISTRATE RAMANAGARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is at the instance of the creditors, for quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanagaram, made under Sec A of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976, (hereinafter called 'the Act') .

(2.) The facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass: Dasegowda alias Chikkonu, respondent-2, borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 from petitioner-1 under a registered mortgage deed d/ 3-7-75 delivering possession of one acre of land in Sy. No.25 of Nagapura village in Channapatna Taluk. The tolal extent of the said land is 2 acres and 9 guntas. On the same day, he borrowed a sum of Rs.12,000 from petitioner-2 executing another mortgage deed delivering possession of one more acre of land. The two petitioners are thus in possession, of two acres of land in Sy. No.25 and respondent-2 is in possession of the remaining 9 guntas of land. After the coming into force of the Act, respondent-2 filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate claiming relief under Sec.4. The petitioners appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and opposed the said application. They said that respondent-2 is a holder of more than four acres of land, and, therefore, not entiiled to any relief under the Act. But, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after enquiry, held that Respt-2 was in possession of 1 acre and 10 guntas of dry land and 21 guntas of garden land which together work out less than one 'unit' as defined under the Act. He also held that respondent-2 has no other source of income other than agriculture. Accordingly, he directed the petitioners to deliver possession of the land to respondent-2. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, the petitioners, have moved this Court for relief under Article 226.

(3.) The question raised for the petitioners is in a short compass. M.Papanna, learned Counsel for the petitioners, mainly urged that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not take into consideration the land mortgaged by respondent-2 while determining the extent of land held by him and, if that land is included in the total holding of respondent-2, it comes to more than one unit, and respondent-2 would be disentitled to the relief asked for.