MAHIPAT SHAMLA Vs. NATHU VITHOBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed this suit for redemption alleging that the document which had been passed by them in favour of the, defendant in the form of a sale-deed was really a mortgage.

(2.) The defendant disputed this allegation and contended that evidence was not admissible for the purpose of proving that the sale-deed was really a mortgage.

(3.) Issues were raised and the further hearing was fixed for a certain date. After the raising of the issues bat before the hearing, the plaintiff put in the following application: "This is a suit for redemption: plaintiff and defendant had entered into a mortgage transaction and the defendant has taken from the plaintiff a mortgage in the form of a sale-deed. We have got evidence to show that the sale-deed is really a mortgage. The defendant has now given a petition contending that oral evidence is inadmissible though he did not say so in the written-statement. The different High Courts have taken different views as to whether oral evidence was admissible or not. Further, Section 10-A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act states that oral evidence is admissible. The third part of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act has been applied to this District, but Section 10-A is not included in it. Therefore, the point in dispute is whether oral evidence is admissible or not. In such a state of things if this suit is farther prosecuted, plaintiff is likely to suffer loss. Therefore, the plaintiff should be permitted to withdraw this suit and then to bring a fresh suit".