SAYINAVA UMMA Vs. IBRAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question for decision in this civil revision petition is whether the Munsiff's Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under S. 9 (3) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt relief Act. 1958 (Act 31 of 1958 ). THE learned Munsiff held that the court had jurisdiction; hence this civil revision petition by respondents 4 to 13, and 19.

(2.) THE allegations in the petition may be briefly stated: the debtor-petitioner who is the first respondent here sold the three items of immovable property described in the schedule annexed to the petition to the first respondent in the court below on 1st May 1948 for Rs. 2,000. THEre was an agreement that the properties would be conveyed back to the petitioner on payment of the said sum. When the first respondent demanded payment of Rs. 2,000 the petitioner caused him to transfer the properties to the second respondent on 14th August 1950 for Rs. 3,000 which sum included Rs. 1,000 borrowed by the petitioner from the second respondent. THE petitioner had borrowed some money from the third respondent and he caused the second respondent to transfer the properties to the third respondent on 15th March 1951 for Rs. 7,000 inclusive of Rs. 3,000 and interest due to the second respondent and the amount borrowed by him from the third respondent. THEre was a similar sale by the third respondent, to respondents 4 to 19 for Rs. 15,000 out of which the balance after paying Rs. 7,000 and interest to the third respondent was received by the petitioner. According to the petitioner all the vendors had agreed to reconvey the properties to the petitioner on payment of the respective sums advanced by them and the consideration under each sale deed was a debt incurred by him. He further alleged that the debt due to respondents 4 to 19 was only Rs. 15,000 and interest at 51/2 per cent, i. e. , Rs. 20,420, out of which Rs. 20,000 had to be deemed discharged by the income of the property taken by, respondents 4 to 19, the annual income being estimated at Rs. 3,000. Respondents 4 to 19 contended inter alia that the Munsiff's Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition regarding the alleged debt of Rs. 20,420. As stated earlier this point was found against them.

(3.) THE provision in clause (4) that court fees shall be paid as if such applications were suits for the same reliefs supports this view. THE relief sought is to treat the consideration for the sale as a debt and to deduct therefrom the income of the property, i. e to reduce the debt of rs. 20,420 to Rs. 420 by treating part of it as discharged. Court fee is therefore leviable on Rs. 20,420. To hold otherwise would mean that whatever be the amount of the debt, the debtor can put an arbitrary figure as the balance due and thus escape payment of court fees on the proper sum.