S. 23 (4) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act is prospective in nature and will have no application to the present case. The mortgage stood discharged by operation of law under S. 17 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, as the plaintiff had been in possession for more than seven years.

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Titilagarh, in a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,000/- from the defendant.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit alleging that the defendant received a sum of Rs. 4,120/- on 27-1-1967 on executing a registered usufructuary mortgage deed (Ext. 1) in respect of the plaint schedule land and the plaintiff remained in possession of the land. Again on 18-7-1968, the said defendant received a sum of Rs. 1,880/- and executed a registered usufructuary mortgage deed (Ext. 2) for a total sum of Rs. 6,000/ -. The lands were mortgaged as the money was needed to meet the family necessity. The defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and the principal sum of Rs. 6,000/- in case the plaintiff is dispossessed from the land. The plaintiff remained in possession till 31-12-1973. The defendant filed a petition under S. 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act to declare the transfer invalid as the same was without prior permission of the competent authority and the transfer was one from a Scheduled Caste in favour of a non-Scheduled Caste. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he was not aware on the date of mortgage that permission of the competent authority was necessary and on believing in good faith had paid the principal amount. The Sub-Divisional Officer in that proceeding passed an order on 31-12-1973 declaring the transfer to be invalid and directing restoration of possession to the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for refund of the consideration money which the defendant is liable to refund.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT's case in the written statement is that he had not received Rs. 6,000/- as alleged in the plaint nor did he execute any mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was also stated that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, as well as the Orissa Money-Lenders Act. It was the further case of the defendant that he was taking sundry loans from the plaintiff on different occasions and in 1967 he was told that the amount had gone up to Rs. 500/- and the plaintiff impressed upon him to execute either a sale deed or a mortgage deed in his favour. He also told the defendant that the permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer would be delayed and persuaded him to execute a deed and accordingly the defendant executed the same without even the deed being read over and explained to him. He, however, admitted that the total amount of loan he had incurred from the plaintiff together with interest worked out at Rs. 1,880/ -. He reiterated that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste and permission would be necessary to effect the transfer.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings the learned Subordinate Judge framed 9 issues and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not a money-lender in regular course of business and, therefore, the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act. It was also held that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land on 31-12-1973 by order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Titilagarh, and not on 16-4-1974 as alleged by the defendant. The mortgage deeds were genuine and valid and the plaintiff was entitled to refund of Rs. 6,000/ -. The suit was not hit by S. 23 (4) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, as the said provision came into force by Amendment Act of 1976 and was prospective in nature and, therefore, would have no application. On the question of limitation, it was found that the suit was not barred by limitation. On the question whether the mortgage stood redeemed by virtue of S. 17 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, the learned Trial Judge found that S. 17 had no application. On these findings, the suit was decreed.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the defendant-appellant assails the judgment and decree of the trial Court on two grounds:- (I) The conclusion that the suit is not hit by S. 23 (4) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act is