JANKIBAI ABAJI PAWASKAR Vs. BHIKAJI RAGHUNATH CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision applications have been preferred by theoriginal debtor, one Jankibai, against the order passed by thelearned District Judge, Ratnagiri, dismissing her two appeals onthe ground that they were not competent under the provisions ofthe Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947.

(2.) THE petitioner Jankibai was indebted to one RaghunathChavan, the father of the opponents, on a mortgage. There was anapplication for adjustment of debts, in respect of this mortgageunder the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947, (whichwill hereafter be referred to as the Act) and that resulted in anaward against Jankibai which was obtained by the creditor inB.A.D.R. Application No. 859 of 1957 on April 16, 1952. The amountof the award, which was made payable to the creditor, was Rs. 728,to be paid by yearly instalments of Rs. 100 each, the firstinstalment commencing from January 1, 1953. Two instalments of Rs.100 each were paid by the debtor, but as the subsequent instalmentwas not paid, the creditor filed Darkhast No. 1 of 1955 forrecovering the instalment of Rs. 100 which had fallen due onJanuary 1, 1955. It seems that the petitioner Jankibai and herbrother Ramji were also indebted in respect of other dealings toRaghunath Chavan and a decree was obtained by the creditor againstJankibai and her brother Ramji far the amount of Rs. 3.800. Anapplication for adjustment of that decretal amount came to befiled both against Jankibai and Ramji. But Ramji was held not tobe a debtor and only Jankibai was held to be a debtor. Theseproceedings terminated in an award against Jankibai alone whichwas passed in B.A.D.R. Application No. 860 of 1947, for the amountof Rs. 2,050, on April 16, 1952, and the amount was made payableby yearly instalments of Rs. 275 commencing from January 1, 1953.Jankibai paid two instalments in respect of this award for theyears 1953 and 1954. As the instalment for the year 1955 remainedto be paid, the creditor filed Darkhast No. 2 of 1955 for therecovery of the instalment due for 1955. It has to be mentionedthat just two days before the award was passed on April 16, 1952,in B.A.D.R. Application No. 860 of 1947, a purshis was filed onbehalf of the creditor on April 14, 1952, stating that in RegularDarkhast No. 60 of 1949 which was filed by the creditor againstRamji, brother of the petitioner, Rs. 2,402 -10 -1 had beenrecovered including costs amounting to Rs. 88 -1 -0, Rs. 2,314 -9 -1being towards the decretal amount. It has to be noted that inspite of this purshis by the creditor, Jankibai raised nocontention in the B.A.D.R. proceedings that she could in any waytake advantage of this payment received from Ramji with the resultthat an award came to be passed against her to the extent of Rs.2,050 as already stated above.

(3.) AGAINST this decision the petitioner filed two appealsbefore the District -Court at Ratnagiri, which held that the ordersin execution proceedings under an award passed under theprovisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act were notappealable under Section 43 of the Act and that Mr. Walavalkar's clientcould not take advantage of the provisions of Section 47 of the CivilProcedure Code. Therefore the lower appellate Court held that theappeals were incompetent and consequently dismissed both theappeals. That is why the petitioner has filed these two civilrevision applications.