- (1.) THE one and only question which arises for decision in the present case is whether it is open to the legal representative of a debtor to invoke the help of Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of indebtedness Act, 1934.
(2.) ON 28-5-1897 one Lal Singh an occupancy tenant mortgaged his occupancy rights vvith ihe defendants in a sum of Rs. 400/- and on 20-12-1927 he created a further charge of Rs. 135/- on his property. Dull Chand, a son of the mortgagor, applied for the icstitution of the mortgage under the provisions of the Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938. The Special Collector appointed under the provisions of the said Act extinguished the original mortgage for Rs. 400/-and directed the plaintiff to secure the help of a civil Court for the redemption of the mortgage in respect of the charge of Rs. 135/ -. The civil Court applied the provisions of section 30 of the Relief of Indebtedness Act, granted a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and directed the mortgagee to redeem the property on payment of a sum of Rs. 270/ -. The order of the trial Court was upheld by the Additional district Judge of Gurgaon and later by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The mortgagee has appealed.
(3.) SECTION 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, is in the following terms: "30. In any suit brought after the commencement of this Act in respect of a debt as defined in S. 7, advanced before the commencement of this Act no Court shall pass or execute a decree or give effect to an award in respect of such debt for a larger sum than twice the amount of the sum found by the Court to have been actually advanced. . . . . . ";