9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (12) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures 5 bighas and 3 biswas (Khata No. 2 situate in Bhagwatipura, pargana Kewai, district Allahabad) and consists of 5 plots Nos. 26, 27, 29, 30 and 32. Jantari had mortgaged the said land with Suleman on October 4, 1929 and the mortgage, now it is admitted, usufructuary in nature. It is also admitted now that the land was Sir Sankalap of Jantari. On May 27, 1952, Sat Narain filed an application under S. 12 of the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act in the court of the Munsif (East) Allahabad on the allegation that the mortgage had been paid off from the usufruct of the land and he was entitled to redeem it. As required by the Agriculturist Relief Act the claim. was made in the prescribed form and set out the accounts by reason of which it was claimed that the mortgage was satisfied. The defendants, who represented Suleman (the mortgagee) 1 7 opposed the application. Two written statements were filed on October 4, 1952 and March 31, 1953. Both the statements alleged that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist and hence the suit was not maintainable under s. 12 of the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act. They also stated that the mortgage was not satisfied from the usufruct as the land was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. He could, under S. 12 of that Act apply, notwithstanding anything in s. 83 of the Transfer of Property Act or any contract to the contrary, for an order directing that the mortgage be redeemed, and, where the mortgage was with possession, that the mortgagor agriculturist be put in possession of the mortgaged property. It is clear that on May 27, 1952 when the application under s. 12 of the Agriculturist Relief Act was filed the provisions of that Act including S. 12 were available. The competency of the proceedings is challenged because in 1953 in amending the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the Agriculturist Relief Act was repealed and certain kinds of suits were to go under S. 339 of the Abolition Act read with Schedule 3 List I before certain Revenue Officers. Item 13A was added in that List by S. 67 of the Act XVI of 1953 and it repealed the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act. Schedule 2 List I of the Abolition Act conferred jurisdiction on Assistant Collectors First Class to eject asamis. The question which is raised in this appeal is whether after this was done, the suit which was still pending. could con- tinue before the Munsif and on the application unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected from his holding except as provided in the Abolition Act and refer to s. 202(c) where the procedure for the ejectment of an asami who belongs to the class mentioned in cl. (d) of sub-s. (1) of s. 21 is provided. Section 202(c) reads : 202. Procedure of ejectment of asami. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 338, an asami shall be liable to ejectment from his holding on the suit of the Gaon Samaj or landholder as the case may be on the ground or grounds. (c) that he belongs to the class mentioned in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 21 and the mortgage has been satisfied or the amount due has been deposited in Court; They also refer to Schedule II of the Abolition Act which lays down that a suit for ejectment of an asami must go before an Assistant Collector (first Class). They contend, therefore, that the proceedings before the Munsif were incompetent after July 1, 1952 and no decree could be passed in favour of the representatives of a mortgagor. The Zamindari Abolition Act came into force with effect from July 1, 1952. It has undergone numerous amendments and it is somewhat difficult to find out at any given moment of time what the state of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Munsif. There is nothing in the Abolition Act which takes away the right of suit in respect of a pending action. If there be any doubt, it is removed when we consider that the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act was repealed retrospectively from July 1, 1952 only and it is not, therefore, possible to give the repeal further retrospectively so as to affect a suit pending from before that date. The jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector was itself created from July 1, 1952 and there is no provision in the Abolition Act that pending cases were to stand transferred to the Assistant Collector for disposal. Such provisions are commonly found in a statute which takes away the jurisdiction of one court and confers it on another. From these two circumstances it is to be inferred that if there is at all any expression of intention, it is to keep s. 6 of the General Clauses Act applicable to pending litigation. The doubt, if any be left, is further removed if we consider a later amending Act, namely, Amending Act XVIII of 1956. By that Act Schedule 11, which created the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector in suits for ejectment of asamis was replaced by another Schedule. The entry relatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
