AHLYAJI Vs. AMBADASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for redemption on the ground that his father had mortgaged his property with defendant who now refuses the plaintiff's title to the land. The defence was that the transaction was an out and out sale not that of a mortgage. The trial court after taking evidence found for the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The first appellate court agreeing with the finding, however, modified the decree and ordered that the decree of the trial Court be forwarded to the Collector to proceed according to law. The able Advocate for the appellant contends that the lower courts have erred in admitting evidence of mortgage in the face of the contents of the document and secondly that the evidence has not been properly appreciated.

(2.) THE contention was that in view of '39 Deccan L. R. 512 and, 37 Deccan L. R. 241 ', the Agricultural Land Alienation Act does not apply to this case, as the suit document was executed in 1347 F. There seems to be an erroneous conception that the law and incidence relating thereto are governed by the laws that exist at the time when a transaction was made. I have heard some very interesting propositions and even some startling ones in other cases where the doctrine of retrospective and prospective application has led to sufficient confusion. The nature of the transaction, its validity or otherwise the rights and liabilities among the parties therefore and the extent of its binding nature may be determined by the law in force at the time when the transaction is made, and other matters such as the restriction on the mode and method of enforceability of a right may in some instances be restricted by the then existing rules and laws. But the question of proof, method of proof, relevancy and admissibility of evidence does not necessarily stand on the same footing. However in this particular instance there is no need even to draw on the general principles relating to the subject as independent of all those considerations, S. 6 of the Land Alienation Act is, in its own express terms, applicable to cases where the question arises in trial of the case subsequent to the enforcement irrespective of priority or otherwise of the transaction in point of time. Therefore, I reject this contention and hold that inspire of the fact that the Land Alienation Act came into force after the transaction, the question whether the transaction of mortgage can be proved is governed by Section 6 of the Act.