BHAVSINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. versus KESHAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 10-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

•. 
BHA VSINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
KESHAR SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 11. 
Res Judicata-Land owner filed application claiming relief under a 
certain Act-Plea that the application was barred by principles of C 
res judicata as the previous application filed by the land owner under a 
different Act was dismissed-The two Acts operated on different fields-
Held : The cause of action and relief in the first and second proceedings 
are different-Hence, second proceeding not barred by principles of 
res judicata. 
MP. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar 
Dene Wa/on Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran 
Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976-Scope and ambit of-Explained 
D 
MP. Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967-Scope and E 
ambit of-Explained. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Prohibited transaction of /oan''-Meaning of-Jn the context of 
Section (2)(j) of MP. Samaj Ke Kamjor VargonKe Krishi-Bhumi Dharkon F 
Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se 
Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976. 
The appellant filed an application before the sub-Divisional Officer 
(SDO) under Section 5 of the M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi- G 
Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane 
Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (Act 
of 1977) contending that the transfer of the suit land by registered sale 
deed was a mortgage transaction as the said transfer was for loan 
amount. The SDO allowed the application rejecting the contention that 
the present proceedings were barred by the principles of res judicata on H 
607 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the ground that the previous proceedings initiated by the appellant 
under the M.P. Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 
(Debt Relief Act) it was held that the transfer deed was not a mortgage 
deed and was not covered by the Debt Relief Act. The SDO further held 
that the transfer was null and void under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1977 
being a "prohibited transaction ofloan" as contemplated under Section 
B 2(1) of the Act of 1977. That order was confirmed in appeal. 
However, the High Court held that the previous application filed 
by the appellant under the Debt Relief Act was decided against the 
appellant and it was held that the transaction was of sale and not of a 
mortgage. The High Court further held that in such a situation, the 
C principles of res judicata would be attracted otherwise, there would be 
no finality in the matter and the purchaser of the land would be subject 
to harassment all the time. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. The provisions of the M.P. Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini 
Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (Debt Relief Act) and the M.P. Samaj Ke 
Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke 
Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti 
Adhiniyam, 1976 (Act of 1977) operate in different fields. The Debt 
E Relief Act provides for relief to the debtor, who belongs to the Schedule 
Tribe, by scaling down the principal amount and the rate of interest as 
provided under the Schedule. As against this, the Act of 1977 is of wider 
amplitude and even if there is outright sale transaction by a debtor, it 
would be considered to be a 'prohibited transaction of loan' as 
contemplated under Section 2(1) of the Act and that can be declared 
F null and void under the provisions of the Act. The Legislature has 
specifically stated in the preamble that the Act of 1977 was for providing 
further relief to the holders of agricultural land from agricultural 
indebtedness by nullifying the land grabbing designs resorted to by 
money lenders. Therefore, it provides not only for nullifying of mortgage 
G deeds but also outright sale of land if conditions mentioned therein are 
satisfied. [ 616-D-F] 
2. Further, the relief, which is required to be granted under the 
provisions of the Act of 1977, is altogether different from the relief, 
which is granted under the Debt Relief Act. One provides for declaring 
H the sale transaction to be null and void while the other provides only for 
BHAVSINGH v. KESHAR SINGH (SHAH, J.] 
609 
scaling down the amount of the debt and the interest. Therefore, even A 
in the previous proceedings if it is held that the transaction was not a 
mortgage but a sale, that would not mean that in the present proceedings, 
the appellant 

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