Skip to content


Jankibai Keshav Bandekar Vs. Ramchandra Jairam Badale - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 52 of 1926
Judge
Reported inAIR1928Bom475; (1928)30BOMLR1148; 113Ind.Cas.46
AppellantJankibai Keshav Bandekar
RespondentRamchandra Jairam Badale
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
dekkhan agriculturists' relief act (xvii of 1879), sections 15d and 18-agriculturist mortgagor-sate of equity of redemption-suit for account.;an agriculturist; mortgagor who has sold his equity of redemption cannot bring a suit for account: under section 15d of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act, 1879, on the ground that he may be an unpaid vendor under certain circumstances. nor can such a suit be saved under section 10 of the act. - .....of both the courts that the suit does not fall within the provisions of section 15d of the dekkhan agriculturists relief act. the plaintiffs sold their equity of redemption, and, in our opinion, the result is that they are not 'agriculturists whose property is mortgaged 'within the meaning of section 15d. such mortgaged property as they did have has been sold and so it is no longer their property. it is argued that the suit is maintainable under the provisions of section 16 of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act. which says: 'any agriculturist may sue for an account of money lent or advanced to or paid for him by a creditor, or due by him to the creditor as the price of goods sold, or on a written or unwritten engagement for the payment of money,..' mr. parulekar refers to the.....
Judgment:

Charles Fawcett, Kt., A.C.J.

1. We concur with the findings of both the Courts that the suit does not fall within the provisions of Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. The plaintiffs sold their equity of redemption, and, in our opinion, the result is that they are not 'agriculturists whose property is mortgaged 'within the meaning of Section 15D. Such mortgaged property as they did have has been sold and so it is no longer their property. It is argued that the suit is maintainable under the provisions of Section 16 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. which says: 'Any agriculturist may sue for an account of money lent or advanced to or paid for him by a creditor, or due by him to the creditor as the price of goods sold, or on a written or unwritten engagement for the payment of money,..' Mr. Parulekar refers to the provisions in the mortgage bond under which the mortgagors became liable to pay the mortgage debt personally or from their joint property, and says that this is a written engagement to pay money which falls under the provisions of Section 16. Even assuming that this is so, the present suit is not one brought under Section 16 but is one brought expressly under Section 15D to get a mortgage account. An account in a suit under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act may differ considerably from an account in a suit under Section 16; at any rate, the suit as framed is not one under Section 16. The result is, in our opinion, the appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //