(1.) THE controversy in this revision relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and decide a suit involving a prohibited transaction of loan as defined in the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976.
(2.) THE non-applicant-defendant on 29-4-1974 entered into an agreement to sell 3. 89 acres of agricultural land to the applicant-plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 15,000. The applicant paid Rs. 10,000 on that date. The balance was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed by 31-3-1975. Since the non-applicant failed to execute the necessary sale deed, the applicant brought the suit for specific performance of the contract to sell in his favour. The suit was filed on 28-4-1977. Instead of filing a written statement, the non-applicant by an application objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the suit contending that the transaction in suit was a prohibited transaction of loan within the meaning of sub-section (f)of section 2 of the Adhiniyam and, therefore, was hit by provisions of that adhiniyam. He contended that section 14 of the Adhiniyam created an express bar to the Civil Court's jurisdiction to try the suit. This objection was heard and the parties were permitted to lead evidence. By the impugned order, the trial Court found that the relationship of debtor and creditor existed between the parties, the non-applicant is possessed of less than 8 hectares of agricultural land and that the transaction in suit between the parties is a prohibited transaction of loan. Consequently, the trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and has, therefore, returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court. It is this order which has been challenged in this revision.
(3.) ORDINARILY a litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in some Court or other unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A Civil Court subject to pecuniary and territorial limits must be presumed to have jurisdiction in respect of every civil right unless exclusion of such jurisdiction is expressed or can be necessarily implied. This is what is provided in section 9 of Code of the Civil Procedure. Every presumption should, therefore, be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. It is well-settled that exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred. At the same time, section 9 of the Code recognises the power of the legislature to vest in another tribunal exclusive powers over any given subject-matter and where exclusive jurisdiction is thus created by the legislature, the Civil Court evidently cannot interfere with it, See Gangavva v. Udachappa AIR 1964 Mys. 107 (FB ). One should not, therefore, while interpreting any statute necessarily make an attempt to abridge its operation or cut down or modify its objectives with a view to give effect to the rule of interpretation that the ousting of jurisdiction should not be readily inferred but should be clearly established. The Adhiniyam strikes at prohibited transactions of loan and aims at providing relief to the weaker sections of the people who are holders of agricultural lands. The objective is to rescue the holders of agricultural lands from the clutches of the lenders of money and to save their agricultural lands from the attempts of lenders of money ingeniously designed to grab their lands. The Adhiniyam defines 'holder of agricultural land' in the weaker sections of the people to mean a holder of land used for purposes of agriculture not exceeding eight hectares of unirrigated land or four hectares of irrigated Sand within the State whether as a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in any one or all of the capacities together within the meaning of the Code. While 'lender of money' is defined to mean a person advancing loan to a holder of agricultural land, 'prohibited transaction of loan' means a transaction in which lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural laud against security of his interest in land, whether at the time of advancing the loan or at any time thereafter during the currency of the loan in different ways including an agreement to sell land with or without delivery of possession. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam creates an overriding effect of its provisions over any other law for the time being in force. Section 4 provides that a holder of agricultural land shall be entitled to relief and protection under the Adhiniyam in respect of prohibited transactions of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter but on or before the date of publication of the Adhiniyam in the Gazette. A holder of agricultural land intending to seek relief and protection under the Adhiniyam to any transaction of loan has to apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer seeking such protection or relief. The Adhiniyam then proceeds to provide a procedure to be followed by any holder of agricultural land desirous of seeking protection in respect of prohibited transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed date, which is 1-1-1971 as per clause (a) of section 2 of the Adhiniyam. If no proceedings are pending in any Court of law in relation to such transaction, section 5 provides that an application should be made by the holder of agricultural land before the Sub-Divisional Officer. On receipt of such application, the Sub-Divisional Officer has to make an enquiry as provided in section 6 and may grant any of the relief in accordance with section 7. Section 6 contemplates an enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer on an application presented before him under section 5 by any holder of agricultural land. Section 7 speaks of the reliefs. This section includes a proviso which carves out an exception to the effect that nothing contained therein shall prejudice the right of lender of money to enforce his right to recover the loan advanced by him to the holder of agricultural land under such transaction by due process of law within a period of three months from the the date of final declaration of prohibited transaction of loan void notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963. Any order passed under section 7 is made appealable under section 8 before the Collector and section 9 attaches finality to the order passed by the Collector in appeal or by the Sub-Divisional Officer if no appeal is filed. If, however, proceedings in respect of such transactions are pending in any Court, the provisions of section 11 are attracted and after the publication of the Adhiniyam in the gazette, that Court shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force. Section 12 then enacts that notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force, no lender of money shall, on and from the date of publication of the Adhiniyam in the Gazette, enter into any prohibited transaction of loan with a holder of agricultural land and any such prohibited transaction of loan shall be absolutely null and void and no Court shall entertain any application or suit to enforce any claim of lender of money arising out of prohibited transaction of loan. Then comes section 14 creating bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts and is as follows :