The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility criteria for a debtor under the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1969 must be strictly adhered to for the maintainability of a proceeding under the Act.

JUDGMENT-This revision application raises a question regarding the maintainability of a proceeding under the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1969. The original revision petitioner Raghunathsingh whose heirs have been brought on record, had on 29-9-1969 presented an application to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur for adjudication that the transfer dated 24·6-1950 was a mortgage and for ancillary reliefs. The application was titled as an application under section 3 read with section 20 of the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtor's Relief Ordinance, 1969 which was subsequently turned into the Act referred to above.

2. According to the petitioner, there were surrounding circumstances connected with the transaction, such as the accompanying agreements to reconvey the property which show that the transaction which purported to be out and out sale was in fact a mortgage.

3. This application was opposed by the non· applicant creditor, inter alia, on the ground that the same was not maintainable under the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1969. Mr. M. R. Deshpande, the then Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur negatived the objection and held that the petition was maintainable. The appeal preferred against that order was allowed by Mr. A. D. Tated, Sec0nd Extra Assistant Judge, who held that the non-applicant was not a debtor as defined by the Act.

4. Whenever an application is given under the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1969, section 15 makes it incumbent to frame preliminary issues, for finding out whether the person for the adjustment of whose debts the application has been made is a debtor and whether the creditor or creditors are holding a valid decree against the debtor. Apparently this would apply only to cases where the applicant is a debtor or a creditor. The main question in controversy is the status of the original petitioner to present the application. Since the application required determination of the dispute falling under section 20 of the Act and since that section starts with the non obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or contract", it was argued that the original petitioner who was an agriculturist and claimed to be a debtor could agitate his claim under the Act of 1969. The contention does not appear to be sound.

5. The preamble of the Act would show that it was enacted for the relief of "certain agricultural debtors". In other words, the person claiming the relief should not only be a debtor, but must be an agricultural debtor. About this there is no dispute here. But it is not that every agricultural debtor could get the relief under the Act, but only certain agricultural debtors are entitled for benefit under the Act. This would naturally lead us to the inbuilt provisions of the Act for finding out who is such a debtor. Section 2 of the Act gives definitions of the words 'creditor', 'debtor', 'decree' etc. It starts with the clause "unless the context otherwise requires", thus making a saving provision if any other interpretation is necessary by observing the context. Plainly read, 'creditor' means the holder of a decree. 'Debt' means any liability payable by a debtor under or in relation to any decree. Emphasis should be laid on the words showing that the liability arises on a decree. 'Debtor' is defined as a person (including an undivided Hindu family) who is a judgment-debtor or defendant against whom all proceedings of the nature referred to in subsection (1) of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Act have been stayed. The Madhya Pradesh Act is also further defined as showing the Madhya Pradesh Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1956. It would thus be clear that the main object of the Madhya Pradesh Act was to postpone execution of decrees, and therefore, obviously it applied to the cases where the decree is already existing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document