MANCHERJI HORMUSJI Vs. THAKORDAS HURKISONDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a decree for sale of mortgaged property was passed some years ago and the execution therefor transferred to the Collector. He sold some of the mortgaged property and it realized more than Rs. 20,000. The rest he has ordered to be sold. In the meantime the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act has been applied to the District of Surat and the judgment-debtor asks for instalments under Secs.15 B and 20 of the Act.

(2.) The other question is of limitation.

(3.) As to the first question Section 20 does not apply to suits on mortgage- decrees, so the question really depends on the construction of Section 15 B of the Act. Before dealing with that section it is material to notice that the Act in the preamble says that "it is expedient to relieve the agricultural classes of the Dekkhan from indebtedness." Further it has been laid down by Ranade J. (Bhagawan V/s. Gannu (1899)1. L. R. 23 Bom. 644 at p. 652) that the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act in several of its provisions is inconsistent with the Transfer of Property Act: " Of course where, as in Secs.15 A, 15 B, 15 0, 15 D, 16, 20, 22, 70, the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act contains provisions directly inconsistent with those of the Transfer of Property Act, they are saved by Section 2(a) of Act IV of 1882." Further it was held in Mahadaji V/s. Hari (1883) I.L.R. 7 Bom. 322 that the powers of the Collector are limited by Section 321 of the Civil Procedure Code and that Officer cannot order the payment of a decree by instalments.