CHIMA SAVALARAM LANDE Vs. BABULAL RAVCHAND SHETH GUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the original plaintiff against an order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Murbad, in the Thana District, declining to transfer the suit to the Court under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947. The facts are that in 1945 the plaintiff filed suit No.28 of 1945 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Murbad, for a declaration that the transaction of August 28, 1915, purporting to be a sale, was in fact a mortgage and for accounts. At the time when he filed this suit, a Debt Adjustment Board had been established for that taluka as far back as 1942. But by virtue of Section 45 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1939, he could not have made an application to the Debt Adjustment Board at that time as the transaction was of the year 1915. On May 27, 1947, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1947 came into force. Thereupon, on June 13, 1947, the plaintiff prayed that the suit might be transferred to the Court established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. The trial Court held that the suit could not be transferred. As against this order the plaintiff has come in revision.

(2.) IN support of his application Mr. Gupte, the learned advocate for the plaintiff-applicant, contends that Section 19 (1) of the Act of 1947 confers wider powers on the Court than the corresponding Section 37 (1) of the repealed Act. Section 37 of the old Act was subject to Section 45 of the same Act, which provided that nothing in that section shall apply to any transactions entered into before January 1, 1927. IN the new Act there is no provision corresponding to Section 45 (2) of the old Act. The learned Judge, however, did not accept this contention. According to him, the suits or proceedings to be transferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 must satisfy the requirements of Section 4.I am afraid the learned Judge has entirely misread the two sections.

(3.) I therefore hold that the trial Court was wrong in holding that Section 19 was controlled by Section 4, and consequently in refusing to transfer the suit to the Court under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act.