MARUTI VITHU MULE Vs. GANPAT GENU DHAMDHERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision applications raise some interesting points under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. The facts leading to the suits out of which these applications arise are these.

(2.) The plaintiff filed two suits Nos. 9 and 10 of 1944 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Ghodnadi in the Poona District for accounts alleging that the transaction of August 18, 1884, though appearing to be a sale was in fact a mortgage. The two suits were under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. On May 1, 1945, a Debt Adjustment Board was established for that taluka. On July 12, 1945, the plaintiff passed a purshis that he was a debtor and his debts were less than Rs. 15,000 and prayed that the suits may be transferred to the Debt Adjustment Board. The trial Court, however, asked the plaintiff in each case to get a declaration by the Board that he was a debtor and adjourned the hearing of the suit. The plaintiff realising that the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act would not apply to a transaction of 1884, filed another purshis on July 25, 1945, stating that the suit may be proceeded with under the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act as the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act did not apply to the particular transaction in question. On January 11, 1946, the suit came on for hearing. At that time the defendant applied stating that under Section 85 (1) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act ceased to have any force in that area and consequently Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act would not apply to the hearing of such a suit. He, therefore, urged that the plaintiff should not be allowed to lead oral evidence to prove that the transaction of 1884 was a mortgage. The trial Court allowed the application and held, relying upon Section 85(1) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, that the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act ceased to have any force in that area and that Section 10A would not apply. Against this order the plaintiffs went in revision to the District Court at Poona. The learned District Judge held that the suits were really governed by Section 86 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and that they continue to be governed by the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act and remanded the suits to the trial Court to be heard and disposed of according to law. The defendant being aggrieved by the orders in the revision applications, has come in revision.

(3.) Mr. Chitale, the learned advocate for the defendant, contends that the learned District Judge had misread Secs.85 and 86 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. It is the contention of Mr. Chitale that on the date, viz. May 1, 1945, when the Debt Adjustment Board was established, the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act would cease to have any force under Section 85 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and consequently the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act would not govern such a suit. And secondly his contention is that Section 86 would not save such a suit because Section 86 provides that Dekkhan Agricultursts Relief Act would remain in force only for the purpose of institution of suits for a period of three years from the aforesaid date and according to his contention the further procedure must be under the ordinary law, and lastly he says that as the present suit was not filed between May 1, 1945 a May, 1, 1948, Sub-clause (6) of the second paragraph of Section 80 would not govern such a suit.