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

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 10-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

136 
JT. FAMILY OF MUKUND DAS RAJA BHAGWAN DASS & 
SONS ETC. 
v. 
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD 
September 10, 1970 
[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. 
A 
B 
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 
two conditions for the 
applica,J11ity of s. 25. 
(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. 
535, 
approved. 
G 
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, 
A 
B 
MUKUND DAS v. STATE BANK (Grover, J.) 
I 3 7 
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and decrees dated 
February 8, 1963 of the Andbra Pradesh High Court in Civil 
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. 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. 
1138 of 1966 is directed against the judgment. of the Andbra 
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.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.