SAKHARAM VISHRAM SURVE Vs. SADASHIV BALSHET LODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiffs sued for redemption. In the first Court an issue was raised as to whether any of the plaintiffs were agriculturists. It was found that plaintiff No. 2 was an agriculturist. But no decree was drawn up in accordance with that preliminary finding. The trial proceeded as a trial under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act and a decree was made for redemption.

(2.) Thereupon one of the defendants appealed to the District Court, taking amongst other grounds that it was wrong to hold that plaintiff No. 2 was an agriculturist. An issue on the point was framed by the Court of appeal. It was found that plaintiff No. 2 was not an agriculturist.

(3.) He now comes in second appeal to this Court and urges that the Court of first appeal was wrong in going into this preliminary point at all. He bases his contention largely on the case of Govind Ramchandra v. Vithal Gopal, (1912) 36 Bom,536.