SHEIKH SULTAN RAHIM Vs. RANCHHODJI MULJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued to redeem a mortgage dated July 15, 1919, contending that, though in form the document is a sale-deed, it was treated as a mortgage under a contemporaneous oral agreement. In respect of this contention, he claimed to be entitled to the benefit of Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. An issue was, accordingly, raised in the trial Court "whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist as defined by law". Upon this, the Subordinate Judge held that he was not an agriculturist at the date of the suit, but was one at the date of the suit transaction. On this finding he held that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of Section 10A. On the merits he passed a decree for redemption in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendant appealed, one of the grounds urged being that the trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiff was an agriculturist at the date of the suit transaction. The District Judge, however, agreed with the finding of the lower Court on this point, and confirmed the decree for redemption.

(3.) In this second appeal, it is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of Section 10A, because to invoke the aid of that section he must be an agriculturist both at the date of the suit and at the date of the transaction.