From June 9, 1933 to April 7, 1934 the father of the 1st respondent was in possession.
After the remand, the Civil Judge held that the transaction was number a mortgage and the appellants had acquired title to the lands by adverse possession.
The 2nd respondent sold the same to the 1st appellant on April 7, 1934, and he was put in possession on the same day.
On April 14, 1949 the learned District Judge, Kaira, set aside the order of the Board and remanded the case to the companyrt of the Civil Judge Junior Division at Kapadwanj with a direction to decide afresh the question of the nature of the said transaction in accordance with law.
From April 7, 1934 to August 3, 1945 the appellants were in possession of the disputed lands and the said period of occupation of the lands by the appellants was less than 12 years.
On September 29, 1953, the Civil Judge dismissed the petition as number maintainable but on appeal the District Judge, Kaira, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Civil Judge for disposal according to law.
It appears from the record that only the 1st appellant was made a party respondent to that application.
The 2nd respondent denied that he had any money dealings with the father of the 1st respondent and stated that the lands were number in his possession.
Against that order, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal to the District Judge at Nadiad.
The father of the 1st respondent sold the lands to the 2nd respondent on June 9, 1933.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 10, 1962 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
To that application only the 2nd respondent was made a party.
L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
The appellants have been in possession of the said lands from April 7, 1934.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, S. H. Sheth and M. V. Goswami, for the appellants.
Hence the present appeal.
Against that order the 1st respondent preferred an appeal to the District Judge, who, by his order dated October 16, 1958, held that the mortgage subsisted and that the appellants had number acquired title to the said lands by adverse possession.
His case was that his father had money dealings with the 2nd respondent and in companysideration of past debts his father had sold the said lands to the 2nd respondent in 1933 by way of an oral sale with a companydition of reconveyance of the said lands to the vendor and, therefore, the said debt was liable to be adjusted under the provisions of the said Act.
93 went to the share of the 2nd appellant and the remaining two lands fell to the share of the 1st appellant.
386 of 1964.
In hat view, he remanded the case to the Civil Judge for adjustment of the debts.
The application for adjustment of the debt was made on August 3, 1945.
And 4 The benefit under s. 55 6 b of the Transfer of Property Act is available only to a buyer under a valid transaction and number to a buyer under a transaction which is void at the very inception.
On revision the High Court of Gujarat accepted the finding of the learned District Judge and dismissed the revision.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 for a sum of Rs.
On June 9, 1933, he sold the same by an oral vardi to respondent No.
The relevant facts may be briefly stated.
The appellants and the 2nd respondent preferred a revision to the High Court, but that was summarily rejected.
158 of 1960.
2,521 and the 1st appellant got possession thereof on the said date.
On April 29, 1947, the said Board held that the sales in favour of the 2nd respondent and the appellants were invalid and directed the 2nd respondent to render the accounts.
On December 4, 1945, the respondent made an application before the Debt Adjustment Board for adding the appellants as respondents to the petition.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, J. This appeal by special, leave is directed against the order of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
On May 27, 1947, Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 28 of 1947, hereinafter called the new Act, came into force and under s. 56 2 thereof the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1939, hereinafter called the repealed Act was repealed.
93, 102/3 and 125/1 in village Chikhlod, Taluka Kapadwanj, District Kaira in the State of Gujarat.
The father of the first respondent owned three pieces of land bearing Survey Nos.
On April 7, 1934, the 2nd respondent sold the said lands to the 1st appellant by an oral vardi for Rs.
On August 3, 1945, the 1st respondent filed an application before the Debt Adjustment Board under s. 17, read with s. 18 and s. 45 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1939.
On April 24, 1950, the 1st respondent made an application before the Civil Judge for adding the 2nd appellant as a party respondent and that petition was allowed on August 21, 1950.
It was remanded to the said Civil Judge as under the new Act the Debt Adjustment Board was dissolved and its jurisdiction was vested on the Civil Judge.
