RAJA SHATRUNJI versus MOHAMMAD AZMAT AZIM KHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 21-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAJA SBATRVNR 
"· 
MOHAMMAD UMAT AZIM KHAN " ORS. 
April 21, 1971 
[C. A. VAlOIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.) 
U.l'. Zamintiara D•bt R•duclion Act (15 of 1955), •· 4 a.i·am•nd•d by 
th• Amtndment Act of 1962-Efject of amendment, Cod• of Civil l'roct· 
dure (Act 5 of 1908), O. 41-Rtvi•-l'rinclp/t1 for granting wh•n siaiute 
am•nded. 
.03 
A 
• 
An application for tho reduction of the decretal amount of a decree 
passed under tho U.P. Encumbered Estat .. Act, 1934, filed by the rC8pon-
0 
dents unde1 s. 4 of tho U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, 1953, was 
rejected by the Special Judae actina under 1953-Act, on the ground that 
unless and until the decree charged the mortgaged property no reduction 
of debt could be orderd under the 1953-Acl The appeal to the High 
Court was dismissed. The 1953-Act was amended by the U.P. Zamindars' 
Debt Reductio11 (A!llendment) Act, 1962, by deleting the words 'charged 
under the decree' from the section. Thereafter, the judgment debtor filed 
an application for review in the High Court, and the High Court set aside 
D 
the order of the Special Judge, and remanded the matter. 
On the questions: (1) whether the section as amended could be in-
voked ~Y the respondents, and (2) whether the High Court could grant 
the application, 
HELD: (I) Tho Amendment Act provided that the amendment 
took effC('t as if the amendment had been in force on all material dat,s, 
that is, the words 'charged under the decree' in s. 
4(2) of 1953-Act 
were never there. The consequence is that the only statutory requirement 
is whether tho mortgaged proprty consists of an estate which bas been 
acquired under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land 
Reforms Act, 1950. In the present case, the decree related to a secured 
debt and the mortgaged property conSisted ot an estate which had been 
acquired under the provisions of Abolition Act, and therefore, the section 
could be invoked. [436F; 437E-F; H, 438A-B] 
State of Bombay v. l'andurang Vinayak Chapha/kar & Or.. [1953] 
S.C.R. 773, referred to. 
, 
(2) It was not a case where, when the High Court decided the matter, 
it applied the law as it stood and there was a subsequent change of law, 
which would not be a ground fof review. [438E-F] 
G 
(a) The law in s. 4 of the 1953-Act as amended was not a subsequent 
Jaw, but a law which was there from the inception of the Act. The deem-
ing provision makes it fully effective ·from the date when the 1953-Act 
can1e into force. The result is P1ut the High Court in the first instance 
should have applied the law as it always stood and not having done so 
it would be an error on the face of the record. [438F-H] 
(b) Moreover, s. 4 of the 1953-Act confers power on the Court to 
lll'PIY the law notwithstanding any provision contained in the Civil Proce-
dure Code. It is a special legislation conferrina riahts and reliefs within 
28-1 S.C. Indla/71 
H 
434 
A 
B 
SUPRBMB COURT RBPORTS 
[1971) SUPP. l;(l.I:. 
a specially created jurisdiction and it is the substance and not the form 
that would be decisive, in such a case .. [439 C-D] 
. 
(c) The Si>ecial Judge could not have ordered the application after 
1t was affirmed by !ho High Court in tho first instance and therefore the 
respondents rightly applied to tho High Court. [438H ;' 439A] 
' 
Rajah Kotagir Venkata Subbamma Rao v. Rajah Ve/lanki, 21 I.A. 
197, referred to. 
QVJL APPBLLATB JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1007 of 
1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 30, 1963 of 
the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Review Application 
C 
No. 2 of 1963. 
C. B. Agarwala and Akhtar Husain, for the appellant. 
Danial A. Latifi, and M. l. Khowaja, for respondent No. I. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
p 
G 
H 
Ray, J.-This appeal is by certificate from the judgment of the 
Allahabad High Court dated 30 April, 1963. 
Leave was granted 
by the Allahabad High Court on 21 February, 1966. 
The facts are these. 
On 4 October, 1939 the appellant 
obtained a decree under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 
against Sardar Mujibul 
Rahman Khan for the sum of 
Rs. 1,31,040-1-0 with costs and future interest at 3!% p.a. on the 
basis of a secured debt 
Sardar Mujibul Rahman Khan the judg-
ment debtor died on 24 April, 1949. 
Thereafter the judgment 
debtor's sons who were brought on record on 21 April, 1953 ap-
plied for reduction of tfie decretal amount under section 4 of the 
U. P. Zaminpars' Debt Reduction Act, 1952 (Act XV of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.