RAMEGOWDA Vs. SAROJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 ("the Act") and the facts so far as material, are as follows: One Chikkavarada Setty and, his son Sathyanarayana Setty together mortgaged 20 guntas of land out of Sy. No.36/4B for Rs. 3,000 by executing a registered deed dated 16th May, 1974, in favour of the petitioner. On 4th June, 1975, Chikkavarada Setty executed will bequeathing the said land in favour of his grand daughters by Sarojamma. On 10th October, 1975, Chikkavarada Setty died. The legatees under the will who are minors represented by their next friend mother approached the Tashildar, Pandavapura contending that they are debtors as defined under the Act and the mortgaged property should therefore be redeemed with the possession delivered to them. That application was opposed, by the petitioner, on the ground, among others, that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the case, since the mortgage was not executed by the applicants. The Tashildar rejected that contention. He held that since the applicants are proved to be debtors they are entitled to the delivery of possession of the property. He accordingly redeemed the mortgage and directed delivery of possession of the property in favour of Respondent-1. The validity of that order is called in question in this petition.

(2.) The short question for decision is whether the legatees under the will to whom the mortgaged property was bequeathed could get relief under the Act? The answer to the question having regard to the scheme and, the provisions of the Act, in my opinion, should be in the negative. The preamble to the Act states that it is to provide relief from indebtedness to small farmers, landless agricultural labourers and persons belonging to the weaker sections of the people. The Act is thus intended to relieve certain classes of persons from their personal indebtedness when they are not in a position to redeem their properties pledged or mortgaged. S.4(f) of the Act under which the relief has been granted to respondent-1 reads:

(3.) In the result, the rule is made absolute and the impugned order is quashed.