RAM PRASAD Vs. LALA HANSRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Ram Prasad and Jagannath against the order of the District Judge of Banaras by which be confirm-ed the order of the Munsif, Havali, Banaras in an execution matter.

(2.) The facts leading up to this appeal are these. The present appellants had purchased certain property from the respondents. They were unable to pay up the entire purchase price and, in lieu of the unpaid balance, had executed a mortgage in favour of the respondents. The respondents sued on the basis of this mortgage and got a decree. The appellants being agriculturists, this decree was amended in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. Later when the decree was put in execution, the appellants claimed that the land was 'protected land' and could not be sold. The success of the appellants on this plea depended upon the fact whether the transaction on the basis of which the decree was passed was a 'loan' or 'in substance a loan,' The contention of the opposite party was that the transaction was not a loan or in substance a loan and, therefore, the appellants could not take advantage of the benefits conferred by the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, XIII [13] of 1940.

(3.) The respondents relied, in this connection, on the case of Mohd. Shibli Khan v. Ish Datt, 1939 A. L. J. 241 : (A. I. R. (26) 1939 ALL. 398). That was a case where the plaintiff had sold certain shares in a lorry to the defendant who was unable to pay the entire purchase price. Therefore, in lieu of the unpaid price, a mortgage deed had been executed by which the shares purchased in the lorry as well as certain plots were mortgaged by the defendant to the plaintiff. A decree was obtained by the plaintiff. When it was being put in execution, the defendant objected and prayed for reduction under Section 30, U. P. Agriculturists's Relief Act, XXVII [27] of 1934. Under that section relief of interest can only be granted to an agriculturist where the transaction is a 'loan' as defined in that, Act. It was held that this transaction was not a loan or in substance a loan as defined in, the Act and, therefore, no reduction in interest could be granted.