1. This revision raises a question of some importance which is likely to recur. The defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff's father and executed a bond agreeing to re-pay it on a certain date. There was a further condition that if the money was not re-paid on that date the creditior could enter into possession of the defendant's cultivatory holding as a usufructuary mortgagee. It is admitted that this latter covenant was. contrary to the provisions of the tenancy act and illegal. The plaintiff sued for a simple money-decree for the amount advanced by him. The defence was that the whole contract was illegal within the meaning of Section 24 of the Contract Act and that the plaintiff could get no decree. Two judgments of this Court were cited before the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court. Neither of them has been reported except in Indian Cases, One of the rulings is in favour of the plaintiff, the other in favour of the defendants. Under these circumstances it seems desirable that the question of law involved should be decided by a Bench and I direct that this application be laid before a Bench.
JUDGMENT
2. We are both satisfied with the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge which is an admirable one, and the case is really covered by the decision of the late Sir Sundar Lal in the case of Mohammad Shakurv. Gopi 35 Ind. Cas. 202 which the learned Judge has followed. This application is dismissed with costs.