LexSHANKAR PRAHLAD DESHPANDE & ORS versus SETH GENDALAL MOTILAL PATNI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
177
SHANKAR PRAHLAD DESHPANDE & ORS.
v.
SETH GENDALAL MOTILAL PATNI & ORS.
October 29, 1969
{J.C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahdfs and
Alienated Lands) Act I of 1951, ss. 22, 13-Discharge of debt for non-
submission of statement of claim-Fresh order under s. 22 by claims offi.
cer necessary where previous order to submit claim annulled by Baard of
Revenue.
A mortgagor applied to the Claim' Officer under s. 19 of the Madhya
Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates,
Mahals and Alienated
Lands) Act I of 1951 for determination of the debt due to the mortgagee
and for scaling down the debt. The mortgagee contended that the debt,
by adjudication of court, had been merged into a decree and there was no
secured debt which could be determined or scaled
down. The Claims
Officer held that there was a debt due to the mortgagee, that it was a secur.
ed debt and that he had jurisdiction for "determining the debt" and direct-
ed the mortgagee to submit a statement of the claim under s. 22 df the
Act. On appeal by the mortgagee, the Board of Revenue, following the
judgment of the High Court in Ramkishan v. Board of Revenue, Madhya
Pradesh, I.L.R. [1954] Nag. 430, held that the Claim Officer had no juris-
diction to decide whether the debt was a secured debt. Upon the High Court
overruling Ramkrishna's case in J~thalal Bhawanji v. Prabhakar
Sadosiv
I.LR. [1956] Nag. 147, the mortgagee field a statement of his claim before
the Claims Offic-.::r. The mortgagor contended that the debt stood discharged
under s. 22 of the Act as the mortgagee had failed to file a statement di
his claim as originally directed by the Claims Officer. The Claims Officer
upheld the contention.
The. Commiss!oner in appeal set aside the order
of the Oaims Officer discharging the debt and a petition in the High Court
against the Commissioner's order was summarily dismissed.
D~smissing
the appeal to this Court,
HELD : Section 22 enacts a penal p:-ovision and unless the conditions
precedent are satisfied, the debt could not by operation of the statute be
discharged.
In the present case the order of the Claims Officer was reversed by the
Board of Revenue, and all directions given by the Claims Officer, pursuant
to his order calling upon the mortgagee to file a statement of his c1aim,
stood annulled.
Thereafter the Claims Officer did not
pas.s any order
under s. 22 of the Act 1 df 1951 directing that the proceeding shall con-
tinue- and further directing that a notice shall issue calling upon the mort-
gagee to file a statement of the claim. Until a notice, valid in law, dire:tlng
that a statement be filed was •erved upon the mortgagee and he failed t<>
comply with it, the debt could not be discharged, [179 G-180 BJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2373 of
1966,
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September. 1964
of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Appli-
cation No. 471 of 1964.
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
C. B. Agarwala, G. L. Sanghi, P. N. Kukde and A.G. Ratna-
parkhi, for the appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6.
R. M. Hawrnavis a:nd A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for appellant No. 3.
S. T. Desai, M. S. Gupta and S. K. Dhingra, for respondent
No. 1.
N. S. Bindra and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J .-Gendalal-hereinafter called 'the mortgage' -filed
Suit No. 11 of 1939 for recovery of the amount due under a
deed of mortgage of proprietary rights in certain villages executed
in 1929 by Prahlad-father of the appellant. A preliminary
mortgage decree was passed declaring that Rs. 2,16,309/ 11/9
were due on the mortgage.
The decree was made absolute for
sale. The mortgage commenced in 1948 proceediilgs for execut-
ing the decree.
On .March 31, 1951, the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro-
prietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act 1 of
1951 was brought into force.
By virtue of s. 3 of that Act the
proprietary rights of holders of estates, mahals, alienated villages
and alienated lands stood vested in the State. Chapter IV of the
Act provided for "determination of debts".
The mortgagor
Prahlad applied on April 26, 1951 to the Claims Officer under
s. 19 of that Act for "determination of the debt" due to the
mortgagee and for scaling down the debt.
The mortgagee con-
tended that the debt had, by adjudicaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.