ESTHAPPANOSE KATHANAR Vs. GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against an order of the learned District Munsiff of Meenachil holding that for disposing of an application filed by a mortgagor, namely, A.D.R.P. No. 401 of 1959 evidence is seen to be necessary. It is rather unfortunate that the learned District Munsiff has not really stated as to what was the nature of the application filed before him, what was the nature of the objection raised before him and what are the reasons that prompted the learned District Munsiff to hold that evidence is necessary for a proper disposal of the matter. In fact the cryptic order of the learned District Munsiff is Heard. Since evidence is seen to be necessary for a proper disposal of the matter adjourned for evidence & hearing 6-8-1959. In order to know the points in controversy this court had to take the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and it is now seen that A.D.R.P. No. 401 of 1959 is an application filed by the mortgagor claiming relief under S.4 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, Act 31 of 1958.

(2.) An objection appears to have been raised by the mortgagee petitioner before me that the mortgagor is not entitled to any relief excepting as provided in sub-sections 1 to 5 of S.11 of Act 31 of 1958. It is on this application that the learned District Munsiff has passed the order referred to above.

(3.) The mortgagee is the petitioner before me. It is stated that on 6-4-1953, the first respondent before me executed the usufructuary mortgage in question in favour of the petitioner and on the same day the petitioner has given a lease of the properties to the second respondent in this court. It is for getting relief in respect of this mortgage dated 6-4-1953 that the first respondent has filed the necessary application in the lower court.