LAWS(BOM)-1956-8-8

AMBU RAMA MHATRE Vs. BHAU HALYA PATIL

Decided On August 08, 1956
AMBU RAMA MHATRE Appellant
V/S
BHAU HALYA PATIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAU Halya Patil, whom I will hereafter ruler to as the "first respondent", and four others filed Debt Adjustment Application No. 682 of 1947 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior 'division, at Pen against four creditors for adjustment of their debts, alleging that they were agricultural debtors or agricultural labourers within the meaning of the B. A. D. K. Act, the applicants claimed that the transfer of lands S. No. 51 Pot Hissa Nos. 3 and 4, S. No. 90 Pot No. 1 and S. No. 155 Pot Nos. 2 and 3 under a sale deed executed on 12-10-1911, by Halya Patil, father of respondent 1 Bhau Halya Patil and certain other persons, in favour of one Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman, for Rs. 1,137/4/- was in the nature of mortgage and the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman acquired the rights only of mortgagees. The application was resisted by the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman. The learned trial Judge held that the sale deed, dated 12-10-1911, in favour of Shaikh Husain Sileman was in the nature of a mortgage and that the transferees from him were not protected by Section 25 (2) of the B. A. D. R. Act and that they were transferees merely of mortgagee rights, and he made an award declaring that respondent 1 Bhau Halya Patil alone was a debtor and directing the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman to put respondent 1 Bhau Halya Patil in possession of the lands conveyed under the said deed.

(2.) IN appeal to the District Court at Alibag the finding as to the nature of the impugned transaction, was affirmed but the award was set aside and the proceedings were remanded to the trial-Court to ascertain whether respondent 1 was' entitled to redeem the whole properly. The learned trial Judge on remand held that respondent 1 was entitled to redeem the mortgage in its entirety. He also held that Rs. 1,100/6/- were due under the mortgage, and made a fresh award on that finding.

(3.) AGAINST that award an appeal was preferred to the District Court at Alibag and in appeal the learned District Judge partially modified the award by substituting the figure Rs. 1,200/- for Rs. 1,100/6/-, but in all other respects he confirmed the award made by the trial Court. Against the order passed in appeal this revision application has been filed by two out of the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman.