The order for handing over possession of the land in question admeasuring 9.71 acres situated in village Kanadia to the appellant Bhav Singh son of Bheraji was also set aside.
2500 possession of the land in question would be redelivered to the appellant.
1 had assured the appellant that after the amount of loan is repaid, the land in question would be restored to him.
500 and for the said amount sale deed was executed.
R was his companytention that at the time of said transaction, it was agreed upon by the parties that whenever the appellant re pays the amount of Rs.
2003 Supp 3 SCR 607 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 11.9.1993 and order dated 21.3.1994 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore, in M.P. No.
2500 was a mortgage transaction as said transfer was for the loan amount.
By the impugned judgment and orders, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.
274 of 1987 and in review petition bearing MCC No.
2000/ and thereafter he took further loan of Rs.
The High Court allowed the said petition and set aside the order of the SDO and remanded the matter directing that the case be disposed of on merits after holding fresh enquiry.
3 of 1977 hereinafter referred to so the Act of 1977 and was null and void under Section 7 2 of the Act.
1 deceased and his son, respondent number 2, namely, Narendra Kumar and set aside the order dated 11.2.1986 passed by the companypetent authority SDO holding that the appellant was entitled for a declaration that the sale transaction in question was prohibited transaction of loan as companytemplated under Section 2 0 of the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 M.P. Act No.
He companysidered the evidence on record indicating that the appellant was to repay a sum of Rs.
No companytention was raised that proper opportunity of leading evidence or cross examining the witnesses was number given.
2000 on account of the debt incurred by him from the respondent but because there was emergent need, he further took a loan of Rs.
SDO further held that there was a money lending transaction between the appellant and deceased respondent and that the aforesaid instrument was executed as a sale deed but deceased respondent No.
It is stated in the sale deed that appellant was agriculturist and the sale companysideration was Rs.
2500, upon which the respondent was charging interest 1.5 per month.
During the fresh enquiry, as stated in the order, witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties and written arguments were also submitted before the SDO.
Thus, the appellant owed a total sum of Rs.
He also arrived at the companyclusion that the market value of the land at the relevant time was much higher than Rs.
It was his case that despite the fact that full amount had been repaid, the respondent has number restored the possession of the land mortgaged by him.
The companytention that application was time barred was rejected taking into companysideration relevant facts.
That judgment and order was challenged by filing the writ petition before the High Court.
That order was challenged by filing Misc.
724 of 1982 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.
Thereafter, the S.D.O. passed the impugned order holding that the transaction was null and void under Section 7 2 of the Act of 1977.
That application was allowed by the S.D.O. by order dated 29th January 1982.
Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents preferred appeal before the Collector, Indore, which was dismissed on 8th December, 1982.
He also negatived the companytention that S.D.O. has number made proper enquiry and, therefore, the entire proceedings were unconstitutional.
That order was companyfirmed in appeal by the Additional Collector, Indore MP by judgment and order dated 27th February, 1987.
Petition No.
After companysidering the written submissions made by the parties and appreciating the evidence which was led before him, the SDO rejected the companytention that the present proceedings were barred by the principles of res judicata on the ground that in the previous proceedings initiated by the appellant under the provisions of the M.P. Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 hereinafter referred to as Debit Relief Act , it was held that the transfer deed was number a mortgage and was number companyered by the Debt Relief Act.
He also negatived the companytention that the proceedings were barred by the principles of res judicata as both the Acts are different.
The aforesaid order was passed on an application filed by the appellant claiming relief under Section 5 of the Act of 1977 companytending that the transfer of the land by registered sale deed dated 20.7.1960 for a sum of Rs.
For this purpose, SDO took into companysideration that the appellant was indebted for a sum of Rs.
550 of 1993.
