LexDHANKI MAHAJAN versus RANA CHANDUBHA WAKHATSING & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B D E ' G 759 DHANKI MAHAJAN v. RANA CHANDUBHA WAKHATSING & ORS. April 11, 1968 [R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. liEGDE, JJ.] Sdurashrra Agricullurd Debtors' Relief Act 23 of 1954, •· 2(6)(i)- Debtor, definition of-Person with liability over Rs. 25,000 not a debtor- /oint liability of umfructury mortgagoro for an amount llD'.ger than Rs. 25.000-Whether each of them ccn be regarded as liable /or only hi• share of debt and rrta1ed as >debtor for purposes of Act. Respondents 1 to 3 executed in 1940 a usufructury mortgal!e of their land in favour of the al'l"'llant and certain others. The liability under the mortgage was a joint bability and under the terms of the deed each one of the mortgagors was liable fo'r the entire debt due under the mortgage. The respondents claiminB to be 'debtors' under the Satirashtra Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act 1954 prayed for a scaling down of their debts. The· Debt adjustment Board and the B!>pellate court held that the respondents were not 'debtors'. under s. 2(6)(i) of the Act as their total liability ex• ceeded Rs. 25,000 and therefore they were not entitled to the benefit claimed. A learned Single Judge of the High Court however held that ·in computin' the debts due from the respondents each one of them should be held liable only for on&-tbird of the mrirtgage debt and in that event the total debt duo from each WClOlld not exc=I Rs. 25,000. The learned JUdge in bis judgment also considered the question as to bow far a Single Judge of a High Court is bound b)r earlier decloions of the COurt. HELD : (i) A Single Judge of a High Court is ordinarily bound to accept as ccrrect judgments of courts of CO-Ordinate jurisdiction, of Divi- sion Benches and Fiil! Be:nches of bis Olurt. [762 DJ Tribhovandas Purshottllmdas Thakkar v. · Ratilal Alotlla/ P"'e/, A.1:R. 1968 s.c. 372, re-affiimed. . . (ii) Thero could be no dispute that under the Ttansfer of Property Act each of tho respondents must be held to be liable fo'r the entire mOrt- gag<i debt There was nothing in the special provisions of the Sau!ashtra Act which would justify a departure from the said rule. The High Court therefore erred in treating die respondents as 'debtors' under that Act. [763 A-Fl V. Rcma.rwaml Ayyangar v. T. N. V. Ka/Iara Thavar, [1951] S.C.R. 291. distinguished. Ambu Rama Mhatro v. Bhau Halya Patel, A.l.R. 1957 Bom. 6 and Dave Sadashiv JayakrishM v. Rana Govubha, (1962) 3 Guj. L. R. 1007, approved. (iii) While aj,plying the provisions of the Saurashtra Act with the provisiom of the Transfer of Picperty Act or the Contract Act in cettain ca8es s0me difficulty may arille. All these difflculties can be resolved by R reasonably -lnt«preting the relevant provisions of the Act. (764 CJ CrvlL APPELLATE Ju11.1so1cT10N : Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1965. 8 Sap. Cl/6S-'J 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1968] 3 S.C.R · Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated Febf1:1al)'. 12, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 477 of 1960. I. N. Shroff, for the appellants. I. A. Baxi, K. L. Hathi and Atiqur Rehman, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of the· decision of Raju, J. of the Gujarat High Court in an application under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was filed by responde~ts Nos. 1 to 3 herein. As they are the only contesting respondents m this appeal, they will hereinafter be referred to as the respondents. . The respondents are Bhayats and Girasdars of Dhanki village in Lakhtar Taluka of fre Saurashtra region of the Gujarat State. On December 19, 1940, the respondents executed a joint usu- fraotury mortgage in favour of Thakker Jethalal Dosabha (the third appellant herein) and another for a sum of Rs. 17,725. The liability incurred under the mortgage was a joint liability and under the terms of the deed each of the mortgagers was liable for the entire debt due under the mortgage. Till January 25, 1950, Dhanki village was a part of the former State of Bombay. As from January 26, 1950, that village became a part of the State of Saurashtra in view of the provisions in the Provinces and States (Absorption of Enclaves) Order, 1950. Prior to that date, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1939, (Bombay Act No . .XXVIlI of 1939), hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act, was in force in Dhanki village.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.