DEORAM BARKU LONARI Vs. GARBAD KALU LONARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On April 13, 1914, one Barku Dagdu sold his land, survey No. 112, to Deoram Wallad for an amount of Rs. 150. After Deoram Wallad's death his son Kashiram sold it to Nanaji Sayaji, a minor represented by his guardian mother Sitabai, for an amount of Rs. 1,500 on March 6, 1936. Nanaji Sayaji, in his turn, sold it to Garbad Kalu for an amount of Rs. 1,450 on March 12, 1940. Barku Dagdu, the original owner, applied for adjustment of his debts contending that the sale deed executed by him on April 13, 1914, was in the nature of a mortgage, and, therefore, evidenced a debt. Nanaji Sayaji and Garbad Kalu contended that the transaction of April 13, 1914, was not a mortgage, but a sale with a condition of re-purchase, and that in any event they were protected under the provisions of section 25(ii) of the B.A.D.R. Act.

(2.) The trial Court held that the transaction of April 13, 1914, was a mortgage, and that Nanaji Sayaji and Garbad Kalu were not entitled to the benefit under section 25(ii) of the B.A.D.R. Act.

(3.) Garbad Kalu thereafter preferred an appeal to the District Court. That appeal was appeal No. 134 of 1954. Garbad Kalu impleaded Barku Dagdu, the original debtor, and also Nanaji Sayaji, his own transferor. The learned District Judge held that the transaction of April 13, 1914, was not a mortgage, but a sale with a condition of re-purchase, and that Naiiaji Sayaji, the purchaser under the document of sale of March 6, 1936, was protected under section 25(ii) of the B.A.D.R. Act. The learned District Judge also held that Garbad Kalu, who held the property under the sale deed of March 10, 1940, was not protected under the said sub-section.