BHARMAGOWDA BHIMAGOWDA PATIL Vs. IRAPPA SATYAPPA DHANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application filed by the applicants who are described as creditors, against the finding given by the Court established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act that the sale of 1909 passed by the predecessor-in-title of the debtors was not binding upon the reversioners, i. e. the debtors. The facts leading to this application are these.

(2.) ONE Irappa was the owner of the two survey Nos. 43 and 44.He had two sons, Satyappa and Mallappa. Mallappa died leaving a widow Shiddava. Shiddava on August 19, 1895, mortgaged to the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants before me her share in these two survey numbers for Rs. 150. On July 29, 1909, she sold her equity of redemption to the applicants' predecessor-in-title. Shiddava died about the year 1934. On August 3, 1944, the present opponents as the reversionery heirs of Shiddava filed Suit No.208 of 1944 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Hukeri, for redemption of the mortgage of 1895. In that plaint they did not even refer to the sale-deed passed by Shiddava in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present applicants. The defendants who are the applicants here, contended in the suit that Shiddava had already sold her equity of redemption to them and that the mortgage was not subsisting and that, therefore, the suit under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act could not lie. But after the Debt Adjustment Board was established in that taluka, at the instance of debtors, i. e. , the opponents, the suit was transferred to the Board on January 12, 1946. On May 27, 1947, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1947 came into force. So, that matter was transferred back to the Court from the Debt Adjustment Board. At the instance of the opponents-debtors a preliminary issue No.3, was raised, viz. , whether the sale by Shiddava dated July 29, 1909, was for legal necessity and binding on the reversioners. The applicants, who are described as the creditors, contended that as Shiddava had already sold her equity of redemption, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act would not govern this case and the Court established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act had no jurisdiction to decide that issue. The Court, however, held that it had jurisdiction to decide that issue, and has recorded a finding that the sale by Shiddava not being for legal necessity was not binding upon the reversioners who are the debtors in this case. As against this finding the applicants have come in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE rule is made absolute and the opponents should pay the costs of the applicants. .