A single debtor can redeem an entire mortgage, even if other co-mortgagors are not debtors under the B.A.D.R. Act. The debt must be scaled down in its entirety, and the award must relate to the entire debt, not just the debtor's fractional interest.

1. Bhau Halya Patil, whom I will hereafter ruler to as the "first respondent", and four others filed Debt Adjustment Application No. 682 of 1947 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pen against four creditors for adjustment of their debts, alleging that they were agricultural debtors or agricultural labourers within the meaning of the B.A.D.K. Act,

The applicants claimed that the transfer of lands S. No. 51 Pot Hissa Nos. 3 and 4, S. No. 90 Pot No. 1 and S. No. 155 Pot Nos. 2 and 3 under a sale deed executed on 12-10-1911, by Halya Patil, father of respondent 1 Bhau Halya Patil and certain other persons, in favour of one Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman, for Rs. 1,137/4/- was in the nature of mortgage and the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman acquired the rights only of mortgagees. The application was resisted by the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman.

The learned trial Judge held that the sale deed, dated 12-10-1911, in favour of Shaikh Husain Sileman was in the nature of a mortgage and that the transferees from him were not protected by Section 25 (2) of the B.A.D.R. Act and that they were transferees merely of mortgagee rights, and he made an award declaring that respondent 1 Bhau Halya Patil alone was a debtor and directing the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman to put respondent 1 Bhau Halya Patil in possession of the lands conveyed under the said deed.

2. In appeal to the District Court at Alibag the finding as to the nature of the impugned transaction, was affirmed but the award was set aside and the proceedings were remanded to the trial-Court to ascertain whether respondent 1 was entitled to redeem the whole properly. The learned trial Judge on remand held that respondent 1 was entitled to redeem the mortgage in its entirety. He also held that Rs. 1,100/6/- were due under the mortgage, and made a fresh award on that finding.

3. Against that award an appeal was preferred to the District Court at Alibag and in appeal the learned District Judge partially modified the award by substituting the figure Rs. 1,200/- for Rs. 1,100/6/-, but in all other respects he confirmed the award made by the trial Court. Against the order passed in appeal this revision application has been filed by two out of the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman.

4. The principal contention urged in support of this revision application is that when on the findings of the Courts below respondent 1 alone was a debtor, an order declaring that the impugned transaction in its entirety was in the nature of a mortgage and enabling respondent 1 on payment of the amount declared to be due under the mortgage to obtain an order for redemption of the mortgage acid for possession of the entire property could not in law be passed.

It was urged that respondent 1 alone being a debtor, the impugned transaction can be declared a mortgage to the extent of his interest in the property and that in any event the morgage-debt can be scaled down to the extent of a transaction of the debt equal to the fraction interest which respondent 1 has in the property, and that the rest of the debt cannot be scaled down under the B.A.D.R. Act.

5. Now, the original sale deed was executed by Halya Balu -- father of respondent 1, Mahadu Balu, Joma Balu and Sakhi -- widow of Balu. This transaction was ostensibly in the form of a sale-deed. The Courts below have held that the transaction was in the nature of a mortgage but they have held that respondent 1 was alone a debtor within the meaning of the B.A.D.R. Act and the other applicants were not debtors.

The transaction incorporated in the sale deed, dated 12-10-1911, being in the nature of mortgage, respondent 1 as one of the mortgagors has the right to redeem the mortgage in its entirety. That is clear from the terms of Section 91, Transfer of Property Act which provides that any person who has any interest in, or charge upon the property mortgaged or in or upon the right to redeem th