Case: Jt. Family Of Mukund Das Raja Bhagwan Dass &amp;Sons Etc Vs. State Bank Of Hyderabad

1. These appeals arise out of two different litigations although some of the parties are the same. Civil Appeal No. 1138 of 1966 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated February 8, 1963 in a revision petition. The other two cross appeals i.e. 1139 of 1966 and 1140 of l966 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 dispose of Civil Appeal No. 1138 of 1966 first. The Hyderabad State Bank had filed a suit in July 1956 against the joint family business known as Mukund Das Raja Bhagwandas and Sons and the four sons of Raja Bhagwan Das who had died, the sons having been impleaded as defendants 2 to 5. There was a sixth defendant 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 February 2, 1951 defendant No. 2 in his above capacity requested 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 Feb. 8, 1951 to February 12, 1951. After the confirmation of the cash credit limit by the Committee of the 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 This pronote was endorsed in favour of the Bank and thereafter the sum of Rs. 99,500/- which had been withdrawn pending the sanction of the Committee was debited to the cash credit account opened in the name of defendant No. 1 and credited to the personal account of defendant No. 2. It was averred that defendant No. 2-Karta, Head and Manager-was drawing monies from time to time in the cash credit account of defendant No. 1. The drawing limit was reduced subsequently to Rupees 50,000. On September 3, 1952 defendant No. 2 as Kartha and Manager of joint family business of defendant No. 1 executed a fresh pronote for the reduced limit of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of defendant No. 6 which 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. 36,2019-8 in the cash credit account of defendant No. 1 and as collateral security for the same defendant No. 2 executed a fresh pronote in favour of defendant No. 1 the guarantor for Rupees 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 under the cash credit account in his letter dated July 7, 1954. On account of this cash credit account a sum of Rupees 40,869-1-10 was due from defendants 1 to 5 as principal debtors and defendant No. 6 also guarantor together with interest. Defendant No. 2 filed a written statement taking up various pleas contesting the claim of the Bank but no objection was raised on the basis of the provisions of the Hyderabad Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act. 1952 which was published in the Official Gazette on March 18, 1952, hereinafter called the Act". Defendants 3 to 5 and defendant No. 6 also filed their written statements contesting the claim but no 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.2. The suit was decreed by the trial court personally against the 2nd and the 6th defendant and against joint family assets of defendants 2 to 5. In view of the fact that the 6th defendant did not raise any serious contest to the claim it was directed that the plaintiff could proceed in the first instance against the joint family assets of defendants 2 to 5 and person of the second defendant and if the entire sum was not realized then it could levy execution against the sixth defendant. Future interest was awarded at the rate of 51/2% per annum. No appeal was filed against the aforesaid decree. In December l959 the Bank filed an execution petition in the court of the Fourth Additional Judge. On March 10, 1960 the learned Judge passed an order transferring the execution petition 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 singles Judge, who heard the revision petition, referred three questions of law for consideration by a larger bench. The questions referred were asWhether on a true construction of S. 25 (1) of the Act, it has application to suits, appeals and applications for execution and proceedings other than revisional in respect of debts not existing on or before the notified date under Sec. 11 of the Act, pending in any civil or revenue court involving the questions as set out in that section?2. Whether in execution proceedings relating to decrees obtained in suits filed after the notified date, the Court could go behind the decrees passed and trace the history of the transactions which resulted in the liability under the decree?3. If the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, whether section 25 (1) of the Act has to be struck down as violating Articles 14 and 19 (1) (f) of thefirst 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 accordance with the opinion of the Full Bench and on a further consideration of the facts the learned single Judge disposed of the revision petition holding that S. 25 (l) 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 the execution application in accordance with law.3. It is necessary to notice the historical background and the relevant 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 income which was inalienable except with the previous sanction of the Government. On January 25, 1950, another Regulation called the Hyderabad Jagir (Commutation) Regulation, 1359F was enacted. It provided, inter alia, for the method of calculating the commutation in respect of jagirs. As pointed out by the High Court the enactment of the Regulation affected the jagirdars in a large measure. Their former resources were not available to them to pay their debts. The creditors were also faced with a difficult situation which affected their prospects of recovering the loans fully. It was in this background that the Act was passed. Its provisions were mainly borrowed from the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947. Debt was defined by S. 2 (e) to mean any liability in cash or kind whether secure or unsecured due from a jagirdar whether payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise. Section 3 provided exceptions in cases of five categories of debts which were not liable to be scaled down. One of those was the debt due to a scheduled bank.

Reasoning:
5. In our judgment the High Court came to the correct conclusion that the expression "pending" in Section 25 (l) 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. The other condition for the applicability of S. 25 was that the suit or other proceedings must be in respect of a debt with regard to which a jagirdar or the creditor could make an application to the Board on or before the date which the Government had notified for settlement of debts due by the jagirdar. A close examination 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 under S. 15 every debt due by the debtor was to stand extinguished. In a case of the present kind a debt would have stood extinguished if no application 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-matter of settlement by the Board. It may be mentioned that in Babibai Thakuji v. Fazluddin Usmanbhai, ILR (1954) Bom 535  = (AIR 1954 Bom 282 ) a similar provision of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act on which the provisions of the Act were modelled came up for consideration and it was said with reference to Section 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 conditions for the applicability of S. 25 of the Act were not satisfied in the present case the decision of the High Court must be upheld and the appeal (C. A. 1138/66) dismissed. In order to avoid further proceedings which will entail needless expense learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the judgment-debtors will pay the decretal amount in four equal annual instalments. The first instalment which will represent 1/4th of the decretal amount shall be deposited in the executing Court on or before the first January 1971. The subsequent instalments 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 anyone of the instalments in time the entire amount due shall become recoverable at once. As and when the said deposit is -made 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 Appeal No.1140 of 1966 which has been preferred by the Bank 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 afterwards for such balance amount which could not be realized from the second defendant. It is not disputed that the liability of the first and the second defendant was joint and several and the decree of the High Court proceeded on the basis of some equitable relief which was sought for and granted to the first defendant. We are unable to hold and no such principle or statutory provision has been pointed out to us that any such equitable relief could be granted in. a suit of the nature filed by the Bank against the two defendants.Civil Appeals Nos. 1139 and 1140/66 arise out of the decree in C.C.C.A. Nos. 63 and 66 of 1959 dated February 1, 1963 in O.S.No.37 of 1958 So far as the appeal against the Bank-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 debt in question was a post-notification debt. In other words it came into existence after June 30, 1953 which was the date notified by the Government as the last date for settlement of debts due by jagirdars by an application made under S. 11 of the Act.