SHANKAR SADU KAMATHE Vs. CHUNILAL RUPCHAND DAKALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14-9-1935, the petitioner executed in favour of the first opponent a document purporting to be a deed of sale. The petitioner is a resident of Poona, while the first Opponent resides at Saswad in the Poona District. After the passing of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947, a Board was constituted on 1-2-1947 to enable a debtor or his creditor to make an application for adjustment of the debts. The time before which the application was to be made was 1-8-1947. Therefore, an application has to be made on or before 31-7-1947. On 15th July, 1947 the petitioner made an application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saswad, for a declaration that the sale deed dated 14-9-1935 for the consideration of Rs. 800 was intended to operate as a mortgage. On 13th April, 1948, this application was returned to the petitioner to be presented to the proper Court and as the petitioner resided in Poona, he presented the application on 14-4-1948 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Poona. On 23-12-1954, the learned Judge of the Court made an order, declaring that the transaction dated 14-9-1935 was in the nature of a mortgage and following the declaration, he made a further order that, on taking accounts, the debtor was not liable to pay anything to the creditor. The creditor and another person preferred an appeal in the District Court, Poona, under Section 43 of the Act, and that appeal was heard by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Poona, who, on 10-7-1956, allowed the appeal and dismissed the application made by the petitioner for adjustment of his debts. Feeling aggrieved by the appellant order, the debtor has come up on this revisional application, and the point taken on his behalf by his learned Advocate, Mr. N. D. Dange, is that the Court below was wrong in holding that the application presented in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona, was barred by limitation.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. Section 2 (4) defines a "debt." Section 2 (5) defines the expression "debtor." Section 4 (1) provides:

(3.) But it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even so, the petitioner's application must be taken to have been made before 1-8-1947, because the petitioner was entitled to rely upon the provisions contained in Section 14(2) of the Indian Limitation Act. Section 14 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act may be quoted with advantage. It runs as follows: