CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS Vs. HIMMAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition in revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6B, Court-fees Act, as amended in this Province. The facts are as follows:

(2.) The plaintiffs opposite party applied to the Civil Judge of Agra under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage which was for a sum of Rs. 9000. It was contended that the entire mortgage- money had been paid up from the usufruct of the property. The claim was, therefore, for the possession of the property by redemption, without payment of any mortgage-money. The Chief Inspector of Stamps inspected the office of the learned Civil Judge and made the following report: This is a suit which has been filed under Secs.7, 8 and 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, and Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act. The following reliefs have been prayed for: (1) On proof of the fact the property in dispute may be redeemed in favour of the plaintiff and he may be put in possession of the same and if after taking accounts any surplus is discovered, in favour of the plaintiffs, then a decree for the same may also be passed: (2) Mortgage deed dated 18 April 1899 may be ordered to be redeemed. Relief (2) clearly falls under Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act, and as such there is no pojection to the payment of the court-fee of 0-15-0. As regards relief (1) it falls under Secs.7, 8 and 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act of 1940, ad valorem court-fee is payable under this Act and as the concession extended to the Agriculturists Relief Act does not apply to the U.P. Debt Redemption, Act the Court may be pleased to ask the plaintiff to value this relief. The court-fee may then be calculated and realised accordingly. The deficiency so realised may please be reported. After this report the plaintiff got the plaint amended. Relief (1) was struck off and relief (2) was allowed to stand. The only relief now claimed was for the redemption of the mortgage, and for the possession of the property. It is a relief which is fully covered by the provisions of Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934.

(3.) The Chief Inspector is not correct when he says that it is a suit which falls under Secs.7, 8 and 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act of 1940. Section 7 does not give any right of suit. It only repeals the provisions which are usually found in mortgages that the mortgage-money shall be due after the lapse of a certain period. It is a provision which enables the debtors to sue for the redemption of a mortgage despite the period fixed in the contract of mortgage. This right of redemption was available to the plain. tiff a under Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act. It is not a right which accrued to them under Section 7 Debt Redemption Act. Nor is Section 8 applicable to the present case, bemuse it relates to amendments of decrees. We are concerned with no such amendment in She present proceeding. The principle embodied in Section 9 is, of course, applicable to the present case. That section also does not confer any independent right of action. The true position is this. Prior to the passing of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act the rate of interest was governed by Secs.28-31, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934. By Section 27, U.P. Debt Redemption Act of 1940, Secs.28.31, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, were repealed. It was thus necessary to make some provision in the Debt Redemption Act to regulate the rate of interest on loans due from the agriculturists and it was for this purpose that Section 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, was enacted. Instead of Secs.28-31, Agriculturists Relief Act, Section 9, Debt Redemption Act, was now to regulate the rate of interest in all suits to which the Act applied. The expression suits to which this Act applies is defined by Sub- section (17) of Section 2, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940. It means not only the suits but also the proceedings relating to a loan. The word loan is defined in subs. (9) of Section 2 and it will be seen that this definition is in certain respects wider in its scope than the definition of the same term as contained in Sub-section (10) of Section 2, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the suit was one under Section 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act. It was essentially a proceeding for the redemption of the mortgage under Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act, to which the provisions of Section 9, Debt Redemption Act, were sought to be applied for the application of the rate of interest and for the determination of the amount of profits. It is true that in the application the plaintiffs gave the heading: Claim under Section 7, 8 and 9, Debt Redemption Act, and under Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act. We have to look to the pith and the substance ,of the claim and not to the description which the plaintiff gives to it. He was clearly mistaken in mentioning Secs.7 and 8 as already shown above. Once we come to the conclusion that the claim was one under Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act, there can be no room for doubt that the court-fee of 0-15-0 paid by the plaintiffs was sufficient. Secs.7,9, Debt Redemption Act, do not confer any independent right of action but only lay down certain principles to be observed in the suits to which the Act applies.