Shah, J. - (1.)The appellants filed Special civil Suit no. 75 of 1914 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sholapur for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 12th May 1926, of Survey No. 50 of Bolkavathe in Sholapur Taluka executed by the father of defendants 5 and 6 and the grandfather of the appellants in favour of the father of defendants 1 and 2 was intended to operate as a mortgage and consequently they were entitled to redeem the mortgage. The plaintiffs prayed for an account of the mortgage and claimed redemption on payment of the balance remaining due, and further prayed for an order for payment of the amount found due by instalments. In the alternative, they asked for possession of the property on the ground that they had acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession for a period of more than twelve years as against defendants 1 to 4, i. e. between 1926 and 1940, and that they were wrongfully deprived of possession of the property. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs on an allegation that they were agriculturists and were entitled to the benefit of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned trial Judge held that neither the plaintiffs nor defendant 5, who was the father of plaintiff 1, non defendant 6, Page 2 of 10 Pandurang Bhimrao Kulkarni and Ors. vs. Malkappa Bhimgouda and Ors. (14.11.194... who was the father of plaintiff 4, were agriculturists, and hence they were not entitled to file the suit claiming benefit of the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Judge held that the sale deed of the year 1926 was intended to be a mortgage. He held that the real consideration for the transaction was Rs. 2,000, and that the amounts alleged to have been paid by the plaintiffs towards this transaction were duly proved; but, in view of the finding that the plaintiffs were not agriculturists entitled to the benefit of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, he negatived the claim of the plaintiffs to obtain a decree for redemption. He also held that the plaintiffs had not acquired any title to the property by adverse possession as against defendants 1 to 4 and consequently their alternative claim for obtaining possession of the property also failed. He, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs. The plaintiffs filed the present appeal to this Court.
(2.)Mr. Walawalkar, on behalf of the appellants, contended that the learned trial Judge was wrong in the view he took that the plaintiffs were not agriculturists. He further contended that in any case, even if the plaintiffs were not agriculturists within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, defendants 1 to 4 being agriculturists, the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and were entitled to show the real nature of the transaction of the year 1926 relying upon Section 10A of that Act. He also contended that even apart from the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, the transaction of the year 1926 could be proved to be that of a mortgage, and that it was so established in the Court below : and that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the property on the strength of the finding recorded by the Court below. It was finally contended that, by reason of the adverse possession of Laxman (the grandfather of the plaintiffs) who was the transferor of the property, the right, if any, of defendants 1 to 4 and of their predecessors as vendees was extinguished, and the plaintiffs were entitled to obtain possession of the property on the strength of the title acquired by reason of that adverse possession of Laxman.
(3.)The property originally belonged to Laxman and he executed a dead dated 12th May 1926, under which he sold the property to the father of defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 5 and 6 are the sons of Laxman. The plaintiffs contend that they are agriculturists within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and are entitled to file a suit for obtaining redemption after taking accounts under the provisions of that Act. (After discussion of evidence on this point the judgment proceeded.) In the circumstances we agree with the learned trial Judge that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their status as agriculturists under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.