JT. FAMILY OF MUKUND DAS RAJA BHAGWAN DASS & SONS ETC. versus STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

136

JT. FAMILY OF MUKUND DAS RAJA BHAGWAN DASS & SONS ETC.

v.

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

September 10, 1970

A

B

[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]

Hyderabad Jcgirdar Settlement Act, 1952, ss. 11 and 25-Suit filed a/f>er notified date with respect to post notified date debt~lurisdiction of Debt Settlement Board.

Section 11 of the Hyderabad Jagirdar Settlement Act, 1952, enables C

a creditor or a J agirdai: (debtor) to move the Board under the Act for settlement of debts due by the Jagirdar. Such application should be made on or before June 30, 1953, the date notified under the section and if no such application was made the debt stood· extinguished. Under s, 25, if a suit or appeal or execution proceeding was pending in relation to such debt in any court it had to be ftansferred to the Board.

Tlie respondent-bank filed a suit in July 1956 against the appellants D

for recovery of Rs. 40,000/- and odd dµe in July 1954, on aceount of a cash and credit account opened by the appellants with the respondent. The suit was decreed. In December 1959, the bank filed an execution petition for executing the decree.

On the question whether the execution petition should be transferred to

the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Board under s. 25 ( 1) of the Act.

E

HELD : There are

applica,J11ity of s. 25. two conditions for the (a) The expression 'pending' in s. 25 ( 1 ) must relate to proceedings which were pending on the notified date and could not take in any proceedings which came to be instituted after such date; and (b) The suit and other proceedings must be in respect of a debt with regard to which a Jagirdai: or the creditor could make an application to the Board on or before the notified ct.ate. Thus, only those debts which were due on or before the F notified date from a debtor or in respect of which any proceedings were pending in any court or before the B<'ard could be the subject matter of the settlement by the Board. [142 E-H]

Since both the conditions for the applicability of s. 25 of the Act were not satisfied in the present case the proceedings were not liable to be transferred. [143 B-C]

Babihai Thakuji v. Fazludin Usmanbai, I.L.R. [1954] Born.

approved.

G

535,

Since the liability of the principal debtor and the surety is a joint and several liability, a direction that the bank should proceed first against the principal debtor and only afterwards fdr any balance which could not _be realised, against the sui:ety, could not be granted. [144 A-Bl

H

CIVIL APPELLATE J1JRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1138

to 1140 Of 1966,

MUKUND DAS v. STATE BANK (Grover, J.)

I 3 7

A

Appeals by special leave from the judgments and decrees dated in Civil February 8, 1963 of the Andbra Pradesh High Court Revision Petition No. 572 of 1960 and C.C.C. Appeals Nos. 63 and 66 of 1969.

M. C. Chagla and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos.· 1138 of 1966) and the respondents (in C.As. No. l 140 of 1966).

B

B. V. Subramanyam and A. V. Rangam, for the respondent (in' C.A. No. 1138 c:I. 1966) respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1139 of 1966)and the a,ppellant (in C.A. No. 1140 of 1966).

C

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-

Grover, J. These appeals arise out of two different

litiga tions although some of the partie& are the same. Civil Appeal No. the Andbra 1138 of 1966 is directed against the judgment. of Pradesh High Court dated February 8, 1963 in a revision peti tion. The other two cross appeals i.e. 1139 of 1966 and 1140 D of 1966 arise out of the judgment dated February 1, 1963 passed by the same High Court in a suit which had been filed by the State Bank of Hyderabad on the basis of a promissory note dated November 27, 1953 for recovery of Rs. 70,000. We shall dis pose of Civil Appeal No. 1138 of 1966 first. The Hyderabad E State Bank had filed-a suit in July 1956 against the joint fanilly business known as Mukund Das Raja Bhagwandas & Sons and the four sons of Raja Bhagwan Das who had died, the sons hav ing been imp leaded as defendants 2 to 5. There was a sixth de fendant also Srikishen Sookhdev Malani. According to the claim of the Bank defendants 2 to 5 were members of a joint undivided family, defendant No. 2 'being the Head Karta and Manager. On F February 2, 1951 defendant No. 2 in his above capacity request ed the Bank to grant what is called a "clean cash credit" limit of Rs. 1,00,000 against the guarantee of defendant No. 6. Defendant No. 2 was allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs. 99,500 by three cheques from Fc:bruary 8, 1951 to February 12, 1951. After the the confirmation of the cash credit limit by the Committee of G Board of Directors of the Bank on February 22, 1951, defendant No. 2 executed a pronote in favour of defendant No. 6 for the sanctioned limit of Rs. 1,00,000. This pronote was endorsed in favour of the Bank and thereafter the sum of Rs. 99,500 which had been withdrawn pending the sanction of the Committee was debited to the cash credit account opened in the name cl defen- dant No. 1 and credited to the personal account of defendant No. It was averred that defemlant No. 2-Karta, Head and 2. the cash Manager-was drawing monies from time to time in credit account of defendant No. 1. The drawing limit was

H

10-L23SSup.CI/7l

138

SUPllEM·E .. COUR.T lll!POllTS

(1971] 2 S.C.ll. .

ii

redticed subsequently to Rs. ·50,000; On September 3, 1952 ~ .. A feridant No. 2 as Karta and Manager of joint family business Of defendant No. 1 executed a fresh pronote for 'the reduced liniit of Rs. 50,000 in favour of defendant No. 6 whlch was endorsed by him in favour of the Bank. Defendant No. 6 also executed a fresh letter of guarantee. On December 28, 1953 there was a balance of Rs. 36,201-9-8 in the cash credit account of defendant N«>. 1 and as collateral security for the same defendalit No. 2 executed a fresh pronote in favour of defendant No. 1 the guarantor for Rs. 35,000 which was endorsed in favour of the Bank. Defendant No. 6 further executed a fresh letter of guarantee in favour of the · Bank. Defendant No. 2 had confirmed the amount due 111\der the cash credit account in his letter dated July 7, 1954. On account c· of this cash credit account a sum of Rs. 40,869-1-10 was due from defendants 1 to 5 as principal debtors and defendant No. 6 filed a as guarantor together with interest. Defendant No. 2 Written statement taking Up various pleas contesting the Clain{ of the Bank but no objection was raised on the basis of the provi sions of the Hyderabad Jagirdar Settlement Act 1952 which was published in the Official Gazette on March 18,' 1952, hereinafter . D called the "Act". Defendants 3 to. 5 and defendant No. 6 also filed their wtitten statements contesting the claim but nQ plea was · raised on the basis of the provisions of the Act. As many as 10 issues were framed by the learned Fourth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

E

The suit was decreed by the trial court personaliy against fue 2nd IDd the 6th defendant and against joint family assets qf de In view of the fact that the 6th defendant did fendants 2 to 5. not raise any serious contest to the claim it was directed that tJie plaintiff could proceed in the first instance against the joint family assets of defendants 2 to 5 and person of the second defen.dalit . .and if the entire silm was not realized then it could levy execution against the sixth defendant. Future interest was awarded at the rate of St% per annum' No appeal was filed against the aforesaid decree. In December 1959 the Bank filed an execution petition in the court of the Fourth Additional Judge. On March 10, 1960 the learned judge passed an. order transfemng the execution peti tion to the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Board under s. 25 ( 1) of the Act. The Bank challenged the order of transfer before the High Court on the revisional side. The learned single judge, who heard the revision petition, referred three questions of law. for considera- tion by a larger bench. The questions referred were as follows .:-.

"L Whether on a true construction of s. 25 (1 ) of the Act, it has application to suits, appeals and appli cations for execution and proceedings other than revisional in respect of debts not existing on or

G

H

.

A

8

c

D

E

F

G

H

MUKUND DAS v. STATE BANK (Grover, J.)

139

before the notified date under section 11 of the Act, pending in any civil or revenue court involv ing the questions as set out in that section ? 2. Whether in execution proceedings relating to de crees obtained in suits filed after the notified date, the Court could go behind the decrees pass.ed and trace the history of the transactions which resulted in the liability under the decree?

3. If the answer to question (l) is in the afjirmative, whether section 25 (1 ) of the Act has to be struck down as violating Articles 14 and J9(l)(f) of the Constitution ?"

The first question was answered by the Full Bench in the negative. The second question has also similarly answered and it was held that the executing court was not competent to reopen the case by tracing the history of the transaction which resulted in the liability under the decree. Question No. 3 was not answered. In accord ance with the opinion of the Full Bench and 'on a further cori~i­ deration of the facts the I.earned single judge disposed of the revi sion petition holding that s. 25 (I ) of the Act was not applicable and the order of transfer was liable to be set aside. The executing court was directed to proceed and deal with th" execution appli cation in accordarce with Jaw.

It is necessary to notice the historical background and the re· levant provisions of the Act in order to decide the questions which fall for determination. By the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation passed on August 15, 1949 the jagirs were abolished. The jagirdars were declared entitled to a share in the jagir net in come which was inalienable except with the previous senction of the Government. On January 25, 1950, another Regulation called the Hyderabad Jagir (Commutation) Regulation 1359F was It provided, inter a/ia, for the method of calculating the enacted. commutation in respect of jagirs. As pointed out by the High Court the enactment of the Regulation affected the ~agirdars in a large measur.e. Their former resources were not available to them to pay their debts. The creditors were also faced with a difficult situation which affected their ptospects of recovering the Joans fUJly. Its It was in trjs background that the Act was passed. provisions were mainly borrowed from the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947. Debt was defined bys. 2(e) to mean any liability in cash or kind whether secured or unsecured dut from a iagirdar whether payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise. Section 3 provided exceptions in cases of fi'v~ categories of debts which were not liAbJe to be scaled down. One of those was the debt due to a schedu1ed bank.

140

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1971J2 S.C .. R.

Chapter II containing ss. 4 to 10 dealt with the constitution and powers of the Board for the settlement of debts. Section 11 provided that any jagirdar or his creditor could make an applica tion to the Board on or before such date as the Government might notify for settlement of debts due by a jagirdar. Under s. 12 not withstanding the. fact that no application had been filed under s. 11 every creditor on being required to· do so by any of his debtors had to file a correct statement before the Board of his claims against such a debtor and similarly every debtor on beiilg so re quired by any of his creditors had to file a correct statement. According to s. 15 if any debtor and any or all of his creditors arrived at a settlement in respect of any debt due by the debtor to the creditor the debtor or any of the creditors could make an 'application and the Board could proceed to record that settle ment in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the section. Under s. 22 all debts in respect of which ·no application for adjust ment or. settlement was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act were to stand extinguished. Under s. 24 on the date fixed for a hearing of an application made under s. 11 the Board w~ to decide as preliminary issues whethllr a person for the settle ment of whose debt an application had been made was a debtor and whether the total amount of debts due from such person on If· the date of the applicatkm exceeded the sum of Rs. 5,000. the Board found that such a person was not a debtor or that the amount was less than Rs. 5,000 the application was to be dismiss ed. Section 25 provided for transfer of pending suit>, appeals, applications and proceedings to the Board. This section may be reproduced in extenso : -

S.25 "(1 ) All suits, appeals, applications for execution and proceedings other than revisio_nal in respect of any debt pending in any civil or revenue court shall, if they involve the questions whether the person from whom such debt is due is a debtor and whether the total amount of debts from him on the date of the application is less than Rs. 5,000 be transferred to the .Board.

(2) When an application for adjustment of debts made to a Board under section 11 or a statement submitted to a Board under section 21 includes a debt in respect of which a suit, appeal, appli cation for execution or proceeding other than revisional is pending before a civil or revenue court, the Board shall give notic11 thereof to such other court. On receipt of such· notice, such other court shall transfer the suit, appeal, appli·

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

c

D

ll

F

G

H

MUKUND DAS V. STATE BANK (Grover, J.)

141

(3)

(4)

cation or proc~eding, as the case may be, to the Board.

When any suit, appeal, application or proceed ing is transferred to the Board under sub-s. ( 1) or sub-s. (2), the Board shall proceed as if an application under section 11 had been made to it.

If the Board, to which any suit, appeal, applica tion or proceeding is transferred under sub-s. (1 ) or subsection ( 2), decides the preliminary issues mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section ( 1) of section 24 in the negative or mentioned in clau~e (b) of the said sub-sectiOn ( 1) in the the suit, appeal, negative, it shall retransfer the court from application or proceeding to which it had been transferred to itself after the disposal and subject to the result of the appeal where an appeal is filed, and after the expiry of the period prescribed for an appeal where no appeal is filed.

( 5) When any suit, appeal, application or proceed , ing is retransferred to the court under sub sectio;i ( 4) the said court shall proceed with the same."

Section 28 dealt with the mode of taking accounts and s. 35 pro in vided for the scaling down of the debts payable by debtors accordance with their paying capacity in the manner indicated therein. An award was to be made according to s. 36 and fur ther scaling down of debts could be done under s. 37. In terms or s. 11 the Government notified June 30, 1953 as the last day for settlement of debts due by jagirdars. The Full Bench of the High Court quite rightly observed that s. 11 was the basic provision enabling the creditor or the debtor to move' the Board under the Act for settlement of debts. The Act also recognised other modes which would be tantamount to the making of such an application to the Board so as to confer jurisdiction on to settle debts in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the _ Act. Section 25 embodied one of these modes. If a suit or appeal -or execution proceeding etc. was pending in relation to such debtin any court it had to be transferred to the Board. The Board would proceed to deal with it as though an application under s. 11 had been made. The suit or other proceedings had to relate to a debt in respect of which 11n application under s. 11 It was also necessary that could have been made to the Board.

it

142

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1971 J 2 S.C.R.

the proceedings should be pending in the court on the date noti fied. This would follow from the provisions of s. 11. There could be no difficulty about proceedings which were taken in a court subsequent to an application made to the Board under s. 11. That proceeding had necessarily to be transferred on the notice given by the Board. The point which was canvassed before the Full Bench of the High Court was that the expression "pending .. occurring in s. 25 was of wider amplitude and covered all cases the notified of debts whether incurred before or subsequent date. The High Court, after an exhaustive discussion of the various provisions of the Act, came to the conclusion that there were clear indications in them that the debts to be determined and scaled down by the Board were only such debts as were exist ing on the date of the application provided for by s. 11. This is what was finally observed :

to

"Thus the entire scheme of the Act makes it abun dantly clear that matters concerned with the debts prior to the date of application alone (which date of course cannot extend beyond the notified date under section 11 ) are within the cognisance and competence of the Board. It follows that only cases relating to such debts and no other debts are liable to be i' under s. 25(1)."

transferred

to

·

In our judgment the. High Court came to the correct conclu sion that the expression "pending" in s. 25 (1) must relate to pro ceedings which were pending on the notified date and could not take in any proceedingi; which came to be instituted after such date. The other condition for the applicability of s. 25 was that the suit or other proceedings must be in respect of a debt with re gard to which a jagirdar or the creditor could make an applica tion to the Board on or before the date which the Government had notified for settlement of debts due by the jagirdar. A close exa mination of 'S. 22 puts the matter beyond controversy. If no· application had been made under s. 11 within the period specified therein or for recording a settlement made u!lder s. 1 S every debt due by the debtor was to stand extinguished. the present kind a debt would have stood extinguished if no applica tion had been made under s. 11 within the specified period. Thus the material date would be the one notified by the Government under s. 11 and only those debts which were due on or before that date from a debtor or in respect of which any proceedings" were pending in a court or before the Board could be the subject It may be mentioned that in matter of settlement by the Board. Babibai Thakurji v. Fazludin Usmanbai(1) a similar provision of (I) l.L.R. [1954] Born. 535.

In a case of

'·

B

c

L

E

F

G

H

MUKUND DAS v. STATE BANK (Grover, I.)

143

A

B

c

0

E

F

G

H

the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act on which the provi sions of the Act were modelled came up for consideration and it was said with reference to s. 19 ( 1) of that Act that only those suits were liable to be transferred which were pending on the date when an application for adjustment of debts could have been made under s. 4 (which corresponded to s. 11 of the Act). In other words, if a suit was filed after the time to make an application for adjustment of debts had expired such a suit was not liable to be transferred. Since both the conditiQDS for the applicability of s. 25 of the Act were not satisfied in the present ease the decision of the High Court must be upheld and the appeal (C.A. 1138/66) In order to avoid further proceedings which will entail dismissed. needless expense learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the judgment-debtors will pay the decretal amount in four equal a;nnual instalments: The first instalment which will represent Hh of the decretal amount shall be deposited in the executing court on or before the first January 1971. The subsequent instalment~ each year shall be similarly deposited on or before first January. In case of failure on the part of the judgment-debtors to make the deposit of any one of the i;1;talments in time the imtire amount due shall become recoverable at once. As and when the said deposit is ma.de the decree-holder will be entitled to withdraw the same. An order is directed to be made in terms of this settlement between the parties.

Civil Appeals Nos. 1139 & 1140/66 arise out of the decree. in in C.C.C.A. Nos. 63 & 66 of 1959 dated February 1, 1963 0.S. No. 37 of 1958. So far as the appeal against the B~ is concerned there is no merit in it because it has been proved and that finding could not be successfully assailed before us that the In other words it debt in question was a post notification debt. came into existence alter June 30, 1953 which was the date noti fied by the Government as the last date for settlement of debts due by jagird:irs by an application made under s. 11 of the Act. In view of our decision in the connected appeal (C.A. 1138/66) s. 25 ( 1) of the Act was not applicable to the suit filed for the recovery of such a debt. Civil Appeal No. 1139 of 1966, there fore, has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

Civil Appeal No. 1140 of 19~6 which has been prelerred by the Baink involves a very short point. According to the decree of the High Court the plaintiff, namely, the Bank was to proceed and execute the decree against the second defendant in the first instance and was to proceed against the first defendant only after w1µ'ds for such balance amount which could ;not be realized from It is not disputed that the liability of the the second defendant. first and the second defendant was joint and several and the decree of the High Court proceeded on the basis of some equitable relief

144

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

p97.1]2 S.C.R.

which was sought for and granted to the first defendant. We ID'e A unable to hold and no such principle or statutory provision .. jw been pointed out to us that any such equitable relief could ~ granted in a suit of tile nature filed by the B~ against the. twp defendants. We would, accordingly, ·a11ow this appeal to ~ extent of deleting clause ( 2) of the decree and adding in clause ( I ) the following words :

B

Both the defendai!lts shall be jointly and severally

liable for the payment ol the decretal amount.

In view of the entire circumstances. the parties in all the appe&la

are left to bear their own costs in this Court.

V.P.S.

I