RANJEET SINGH Vs. HARJI ALIAS HAZARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff under S. 100 of the Civil P.C., against the judgment and decree of the two Courts below, dismissing the suit, holding that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred by the provisions of the M. P. Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam').

(2.) The necessary facts are as under. Respondent No. 1 Harji, claiming to be a member of the scheduled caste filed two applications on 27-2-1979 and 20-6-1973 to the Debt Relief Court, Sehore alleging that his agricultural land measuring 5.21 acres, village Konazir, tahsil Sehora was mortgaged on 20-6-1973 with the plaintiff as creditor, for a sum of Rs. 500/-, for a period of eight years and although the said loan stands satisfied from the profits derived by the creditor by cultivating that land, the land under mortgage was not returned to the debtor. The Debt Relief Court by its order passed on 24-10-1979 held that the so called document of mortgage dated 20-6-1973 was in fact an agreement of sale under which possession was delivered to the plaintiff. Hence the provisions contained in the Adhiniyam were not attracted and the debtor was not entitled to any relief from that Court. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order of the Debt Relief Court in a revision before the Collector, under S. 22 of the Act. The Collector by order dated 18-7-1980 reversed the order of the Debt Relief Court on a finding that although the document dated 20-6-1273 was termed as an agreement of sale, but there was evidence on record to hold that it was merely executed as a security for loan. The Collector, therefore, held that the debt stands discharged under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. Consequently, the Collector issued a direction that land transferred to the creditor should be returned to respondent No. 1 who was the debtor. By the present suit giving rise to the present appeal, the order passed by the Collector in proceedings under S. 22 of the Adhiniyam has been challenged on grounds inter alia that the provisions of the Adhiniyam were not at all attracted to the transaction or transfer in question between the parties and the order of the Collector, therefore, was without jurisdiction, null and void. The respondent/defendants contested the suit taking a plea that the land was transferred only as a security for the loan advanced and there was no agreement of sale. The defendants also raised a plea of exclusive jurisdiction of the Debt Relief Court and that of the revisional authority exercising powers under the Adhiniyam and supported the order passed by the Collector.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and issue No. 6 was tried as a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. The trial Court placing reliance on the following decisions held that the suit was barred: - (1) Vallabhdas v. Sikanya, AIR 1973 Madh Pra 116; (2) Chhingaram Ramlal v. Sunderlal Chhotelal Rathor, 1981 MPLJ 188; (3) Chatur Singh v. Bhiva Hagriya, 1979 MPLJ S. No. 10 (sic) and (4) Kuru v. Sadashiv, 1970 MPLJ S. No. 40 Page 26.