SOMANA BASAPPA BAGVANKAR Vs. GADIGEYA KORNAYA HIREMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff here sued to redeem certain lands under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief. Act, alleging that a deed (Exhibit No. 16), which he had executed to the defendant, and which is on its face a deed of sale, was in reality only a deed of mortgage, the defendant having promised at the time of the execution of the deed that he would allow the lands concerned to be redeemed on payment of the money advanced. The defendant inter alia replied that Exhibit No. 16 was in fact what it is in appearance, a deed of sale.

(2.) The learned Judge of the Court below framed upon this point the second issue, which is in these terms: "is the sale-deed passed to defendant proved to be really a mortgage, redeemable on the terms stated in the plaint"? On that issue the Judge went into all the evidence tendered, and found the issue in the negative.

(3.) It is now urged for the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the Court below, that the frame of this issue is incorrect; and that we should remand the case for a decision upon a reformed issue as to whether Exhibit No. 16 was obtained or induced by the defendant by means of fraud or misrepresentation, within the meaning of proviso 1 of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.