R. B. CHAUDHARY RAGHURAJ SINGH versus MURARI LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 16-03-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
·C 
D 
E 
F 
G 
R. B. CHAUDHARY RAGHURAJ SINGH 
v. 
MURARI LAL & ORS. 
March 16, 1967 
[K. N. WANCHOO AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J 
U.P. Zamindar's D.ebt Reduction Act (15 of 1953), ss. 2(m), 3 and 
4-''Suit relating to secured debt" and "decree relating to secured debt", 
meaning oj. 
A suit was filed by the respondents, on the basis of a promissory note 
executed in their favour by the appellant, and a decree was passed against 
the appellant. 
The decree provided for payment of the amount due in 
instalments and contained a default clause under which the whole decre.: 
could be executed. The decree also created a charge on certain immovable 
properties of the appollan.t. 
As default was comm'.tted by the appellant, 
the respondents sought execution of the decree. The appellant thereupon 
applied to the Court which passed 
the decree, under s. 4 of the U.P. 
Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act, 1953 to reduce the decretal 
amount. 
The first Court and the High Court on appeal, dismissed the appellant'; 
;.tpplication. 
Jn· appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Section 4 of the Act did not apply in the pre•ent ca>e, and 
th\'!refore the decretal amount could not be reduced. 
Sec!ion 3 of the Act provides for the reduction of debt at the time 
of the passing the decree in "a suit ... :relating to secured debt", and s. 4 
provides for reduction of the debt'S after the passing of ''a decree ...•.. 
relating to a secured debt". 
Whether the debt was secured or not is .i 
matter that has to be tested, both for s. 4 as well as for s. 3, on the date 
the suit \Vas file<l. 
If on tha~ date the debt was secured, as per lhq d·~fini­
tion of a secured debt in s. 2(m) of the Act, by a mortgage or a charg< 
und.;::r s. 100 of the, Transfer of Property Act, the suit would be relatiiig 
to a secured debt and so would be. the decree which might later be pa;sed 
m that suit. But if on that date, the debt was not secured it cannot be l>llid 
that lhe decree related to a secured debt 9imply bec::i.use the d·~cree cr.:atcd 
a charge. 
The legislature could not hav~ in:cnded, that the fact th:u th!! 
decree created a charge should result in converting what was an unsecur-
ed debt into a secured debt for the purpose 
of s. 4. [202 A; C-G; 20J 
E, H; 204 A·B] 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 952 and 
953 of 1964. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
July 24, l 961 of the Allahabad High Court in Execution First 
Appeal No. 440 of 1953 and Civil Revision No. l 402 of 195'.l. 
C. B. Aganvala and K. P. Gupta, for the appellant (in both 
ff 
the appeals). 
S. P. Sinha and S. Shaukm Hussa[n, for respondent No. l ! in 
both the appeals) 
200 
SUPR.BMB COURT REPORTS 
(1967] 3 s.c.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J. These are two connected appeals by special leave 
from a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court. 
The 
facts necessary for present purposes may be briefly indicated. The 
appellant borrowed some money on a promissory note from the 
respondents' predecessors. 
The suit was filed by the respondents 
on the basis of the promissory note and a decree for Rs. 2,71,000/· 
and odd was passed against the appellant. The decree provided 
for 20 instalments payable half-yearly. The decree also provided 
for one or more instalments for pendente lite and future interest 
beyond the twentieth instalment. The first instalment was payable 
in November 1938 and thereafter each instalment was payable on 
or before July 31 and December 31 each year. There was also 
a default clause providing that in case there were three defaults 
in the payment of instalments, the whole decree could be executed. 
Finally the decree created a charge on 18 villages belonging to 
the appellant. It may be added that the charge was created under 
s. 3 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, No. XXVII of 1934. 
The appellant paid the first 17 instalments in time. He paid the 
eighteenth instalment on July 31, 1948 but this was late as by 
then the 20th instalment had also fallen due. As the 19th and 
20th instalments as well as pendente lite and future interest had 
not been paid the decree was put in execution by the respondents 
on April 26, 1951 for recovery of Rs. 49,000/- and odd by 
the sale of a kothi and an Ahata belonging to the appellant. The 
decree-holder respondent also prayed that in case the whole 
amount was not realised from the sale of the above property, zami-
dari property on which a charge had been cre

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