BANSILAL AND ORS. versus MOHAMMAD ISRAIL AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 19-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
BANSILAL AND ORS. 
v . 
. MOHAMMAD ISRAIL AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 19, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Central Provinces and Berar Relief of lndeb(edness Act, 1939: Sections 
12, 14, 15 and 27. 
Section 13(3)-Expression "in the case o.fa mortgage, lien or charge as 
if a .final decree has been passed by a Court of civil jurisdiction" -Scope o.f-
Certificat~ issued under Section 13(3)-Nature and effect of-Held it confers 
on the creditors only the right to recover the entire amount due in one lump-
sum as (fit were a.final decree.for recovery of money-It could not operate as 
a final decree .for foreclosure. 
The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, mortgager-debtor, 
committed two consecutive defaults in repayment of the mortgage dues. 
The scheme for repayment of loan was fixed under the Central Provinces 
and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1939. On an application filed by the 
E 
creditor a certificate was issued by Deputy Commissioner under Section 
13(3) of the Act and the same was confirmed by High Court. Thereafter, 
the creditors filed an execution petition with the prayer for delivery of 
possession of the mortgaged properties from th~ debtors oit t.he ground 
that the certificate issued under Section 13(3) operates as a final decree for 
F 
G 
foreclosure, and, therefore, they were entitled to possession of the mort-
gaged properties. The Judgment-debtors objected that possession of the 
mortgaged properties should not be delivered to the creditors. They con-
tended that the final decree as referred to in section 13(3) of the Act should 
be treated as a final decree for sale and not a final decree for foreclosure of 
the mortgaged properties. Rejecting the objections of the judgment-debt-
ors the executing court held that the certificate operated as final decree for 
foreclosure and consequently directed issuance of the warrant of delivery 
of possession. The said order passed by the Executing Court was con-
firmed by Appellate Court. Second appeal preferred by judgment-debtors 
was allowed by High Court. The High Court held, inter alia, that the effect 
H 
of the certificate unler Section 13(3) of the Act was that it gave to the 
484 
BANSILAL v. MOHAMMAD ISRAIL 
485 
creditors only the right to recover the entire amount due in one lump-sum 
A 
as if it were a final decree for recovery of money and it could not operate 
as a final decree for foreclosure. Consequently, the orders of the Trial 
·Court and the Appellate Court were set aside and the warrant of delivery 
of po~session was quashed. 
In appeal to this Court the question for consideration is whether the 
certificate issued under Section 13(3) amounts to a final decree for realisa-
tion of the mortgage dues by sale of the mortgaged property or it amounts 
to final decree of foreclosure of the right of redemption of the mortgaged 
properties. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The provisions of the Central Province and Berar relief of 
Indebtedness Act neither specifically nor by reasonable inference can be 
B 
c 
said to lay down that in a case where conditions specified in Section 13(3) 
D 
are complied with a decree for foreclosure of the mortgage shall be deemed 
to have been passed and the creditor can straightaway, without taking any 
other step file an execution petition for delivery of possession of the mort-
gaged property. In that view of the matter the High Court rightly inter-
preted the decree to be one for realisation of the entire amount due in 
E 
lump-sum and rightly di~ected the executing court to proceed in the mat-
ter accordingly. [ 493-C] 
2. On a fair reading of the provisions of the Act it is clear that the 
statute has only attempted to help the agriculturists by making it easier for 
them to pay the accumulated dues in instalments and has further safe-
guarded their interest by providing for adjudication of the matters relat-
F 
ing to recoverability or otherwise of the loan amount from the debtor. 
Only in extreme cases in which the debtor has not merely defaulted in 
payment of instalments fixed by the authority but outstanding amount is 
found to be not recoverable as arrear of land revenue then in such a case 
G 
the statute authorises the creditor to proceed for realisation of his dues as 
if the final decree has been passed in h~s favour by a court of civil jurisdic-
tion. [492-G-H] 
3. What the provisions of the Act, provide is that in a case where the . H 
486 
SUPREME COUR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.