JETHABHAI RAMBHAI Vs. RAO LAXMANRAO BHAILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. Their allegation was that they had a title to the land, that the defendants were in wrongful possession and that the defendants were liable to pay mesne profits for the period during which they were in wrongful possession. The suit was filed in a Court which was in the State of Baroda. Baroda was merged with the State of Bombay on August 1, 1949, and the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act was applied to the State of Baroda. The last date for making an application under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act as applied to the Baroda State was January 31, 1950, and an application was made by the defendants on January 9, 1951, for the transfer of this suit to the Debt Adjustment Court. The learned Civil Judge to whom the application was made tool the view that the suit could not be transferred at that stage. It is from that order that this revisional application has been preferred.

(2.) Now, as the suit was pending at the date when the application could be made under Section 4 of the Act, if the suit was one to which Section 13 applied and which was liable to be transferred, it was incumbent upon the learned Civil Judge to transfer the suit. And the question we have to consider is whether a suit for possession in which mesne profits are claimed, is (sic) suit which is liable to be transferred under Section 19(1) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. Now, the scheme of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act has been considered by this Court in several decided cases, and every time the Court considers the scheme of the Act, it is confronted with several difficulties, and an attempt has always got to be made as best as one can to reconcile various sections of the Act. A reconciliation can only be brought about if one considers the main object of enacting the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act and how that object can be achieved, and also by trying to avoid insuperable difficulties in the administration of justice. Bearing these considerations in mind, let us consider what the scheme of the Act is with regard to the transfer of suits.

(3.) Special Courts under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act were set up in order, first, to determine the preliminary issues under Section 17; and those issues were whether the person, for the adjustment of whose debts the application has been made, was a debtor, and whether the total amount of debts due from such person on the date of the application exceeded Rs. 15,000. The Court had jurisdiction to proceed further provided both these issues were answered in favour of the debtor. The further jurisdiction that was conferred upon the Special Courts was to adjust the debts of the debtor with a view ultimately to pass an award under Section 32. The award was passed after scaling down the debts in accordance with the scheme laid down in the Act. Now, it is very pertinent to note that the Debt Adjustment Court did not have the jurisdiction to pass any decree in favour of the plaintiff which was unconnected with the debt which the plaintiff was claiming from the defendant. The only jurisdiction that the Special Court had was to make an award. But with regard to those issues that may arise in the suit, in respect of which a decree might have to be passed by a Court, the jurisdiction of the civil Court was not taken away. Therefore, in the present case, where we have a suit for possession and for mesne profits, if the plaintiffs prove their title to the land, it would not be competent to the Debt Adjustment Court to pass a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs. The jurisdiction, therefore, which tested in the civil Court to pass a decree for possession remains unaffected by the passing of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act.