DAMJI BHUTA Vs. GOBAR BHURA OF DLORAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was held to be a debtor under the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act and was discharged from the liability of a debt of Rs. 5000/- However the Appellate Authority reversed this finding holding that there was no loan or money lending transaction and the petitioner was not a debtor and it was held that the petitioner had agreed to sell his land bearing survey no. 58/5 for a sum of Rs. 7000/- and towards consideration a sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid and this was not a loan.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was in dire economic necessity he wanted to raise some money and obtain a loan and therefore he approached the respondent no.1 and the respondent no. 1 stated that he would advance money at the rate of 3% interest per month. However as he was not having any money lending licence he would insist for a writing of Agreement to sell. It is submitted that even though a sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid and only Rs. 2000/- allegedly remained to be paid the possession of the land was not given or taken and no suit for specific performance or possession was filed for almost three years.

(3.) It is true that these kind of devices are resorted. However in the present case there is no evidence to show that the respondent no. 1 used to have money lending transactions with different persons at different times without having money lending licence. No other instance has been shown. The respondent no. 1 is also an illiterate person. One more circumstance is that the petitioner himself has sold his adjacent land S.No. 58/6 by way of a sale deed for a sum of Rs. 2 to another person only six months hack on 13.1.1975 and this land being survey no. 58/5 had been agreed to be sold for a little higher price to the respondent no. 1 It is thus shown that the petitioner was willing to sell his property and wanted to sell his property and had sold his other land being survey no. 58/6 to another person by a sell deed and therefore it is reasonable to believe that the petitioner had entered into a transaction of agreement to sell with the respondent no. 1 on 4.6