SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(SC) 80

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
26th April 1954.
M.C. MAHAJAN, C.J.I., B.K. MUKHERJEA, BOSE, BHAGWATI AND VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
Sm. Ashalata Debi and others, Appellants
Versus
Shri Jadu nath Roy and others. Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1952.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocate, for Appellants ; Messrs, Bankim Chandra Banerji and R. R. Biswas, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9.

Advocates:
BANKIM CHANDRA BANERJI, R.R.BISWAS, SUKUMAR GHOSH

Headnote:Sections 47 and 96, Order 21, Rule II-Mortgage decree re-opened under S.36, Bengal Money Lenders Act (X of 1940)Property restored to mortgagor on payment in installments Default in payment of installment - Application for re-restoration of property-If for execution.

       A preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 4,21,351-1-6 was passed on the 4th April 1929 and a decree absolute for sale was passed on the 13th September 1929. The mortgaged properties were purchased by the

       1.Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious Endoments Board. Madras, 76 LA. 67 .

       Joy Chand Lal 8abu v, Kamalaksha Choudhury, 76 I.A. 131 referred to.

       decree-holders at auction sales in February 1932 and 1935 for an aggregate amount of Rs. 2,35,200. These sales were duly confirmed and the auction-purchasers took delivery of possession of the various properties between June 1933 and March 1936. The decree-holders obtained in December 1937 a personal decree under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code for the balance due to them, viz. Rs. 3,30,903. The personal, decree was also executed and some properties of the mortgagors were purchased by the decree-holders in August 1939 for Rs. 3,899 and delivery of possession of these properties taken over in July 1940.

       In December 1940 a petition under section 36 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act (X of 1940) was filed by the successors-in-interest of mortgagors for reopening the mortgage decree and the personal decree. These decrees were reopened and a new decree for the sum of Rs. 3,76,324-12-6 passed. The said sum was directed to be paid in fiteen annual equal instalments and the restoration of the properties purchased by the decree holders was also ordered. On appeal the High Court affirmed the decree of the lower court but with some substantial variations in favour of the mortgagor. It was stipulated that on default of payment of any one instalment or cesses or rent within the time prescribed by the High Court, the mortgagees were entitled to get back possession of the said properties from the mortgagors and in that event the sum of Rs. 2,39,099 at which the mortgagees had pnrchased those properties would be balanced against the amount then due to them under the decree. If thereafter any amount still remained due to the mortgagees under the decree they were entitled to apply to the court below for a decree for the balance under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. Possession was delivered to the mortgagors on 5th October 1944, and collection papers on the 28th March 1945.

       On default of payment of the second instalment and certain other dues, the mortgagees made applications in September 1946 and April 1947 asking for restoration of the properties. The lower court rejected these applications holding that there was no default in the payment of revenue and that the default in payment of second instalment though it had accrued was due to the wrongful acts of the decree-holders themselves and that the decree-holders were not entitled to take advantage of their own wrong. Appeal from that order was allowed by the High Court, it having been held that a default had been committed by the mortgagors, and restoration of the properties was ordered. There was appeal to the Supreme Court.

       Held: (dismissing the appeal): The only thing competent to the mortgagees under the terms of the new decree passed by the High Court was to apply for execution of the decree on default committed by the mortgagors and the applications made by the mortgagees in the court below were really applications for execution of the decree though not couched in the proper form and could be treated as such. If they were treated as such it is clear that the orders passed on such applications for execution were appealable and no objection could be sustained on the ground that no appeals lay against these orders.

Judgement

BHAGWATI, J. :

This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta reversing the order of the Third Subordinate Judge, Alipore dismissing the Respondents applications for re-restoration of certain immovable properties.

2. One Romesh Chandra Acharji Choudhury (deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the Appellants borrowed on the 16th August 1918, Rs. 1,60,000 and Rs. 73,000 from the predecessors-in-interest of Respondents under two deeds of mortgage. There being default in payment of the mortgage amounts a suit to realise the mortgage securities was filed on the 10th March 1926 in the Third Subordinate Judge s Court Alipore. A preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 4,21,851-1-6 was passed on the 4th April 1929 and a decree absolute for sale was prossed on the 13th September 1929.

The mortgaged properties were put up for sale in execution proceedings in 1930 and the decreeholders purchased the properties at auction sales on the 29th February 1932 and the 23 rd April 1935 for an aggregate amount of Rs. 2,35,200. These sales were duly confirmed and the auction purchasers took delivery of possession of different times of property on different dates between the 25th June 1933 and the 9th March 1936. The decree-holders obtained on the 13th December 1937 a personal decree under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code for the balance due to them, viz. Rs. 3,30,903. This personal decree was also executed and some properties of the mortgagors were purchased by the decree-holders on the 8th August 1939 for Rs. 3,899 and delivery of posseasion of these properties was duly given to them on the 6th July 1940.

3. Kahitish Chandra Acharji Choudhury, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the Appellants Nos. 1 to 3 and Jyotish Chandra Acharya Choudhury, the Appellant No. 4 sons of the mortgagor filed on the 9th December 1940 a petition under Section 36 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act (Act 10 of 1940) for reopening the mortgage decree and the personal decree. By an order dated the 25th August 1941 the learned subordinate Judge reopened the decrees and on the 10th May 1943 passed a new decree for a sum of Rs. 3,76,324-12-6. The said sum- was directed to be paid by the judgment-debtors to the decree-holders in fifteen equal annual instalments. He also directed the restoration of the properties purchased by the decree-holders.

4. The present Respondents preferred, on the 19th June 1943, an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta and cross-objections were filed by the said Kshitish Chandra Acharji Choudhury and Appellant No. 4. By their judgment and decree dated the 29th June 1944 the High Court affirmed the decree of the Court below with some substaintial variations and passed a new decree in favour of the mortgagors. The mortgagees were ordered to put the mortgagors in possession of all the properties they had purchased in execution of the reopened decrees and render to them an account of the mesne profits of those properties from the 15th September 1941 till they restored or reliquished possession to the mortgagors of the collection papers of those properties.

The sum of Rs. 3,76,374-12-6 was declared to be due by the mortgagors to the mortgagees and the mortgagors were to pay the same in twenty equal annual instalments the first of such instalments to be paid on or before the first anniversary of the date on which the mortgagees restored or relinquished possession of all the properties purchased by them in execution to the mortgagors or of the date on which they delivered to the mortgagors the collection papers as therein mentioned, whichever date was later.

The mortgagors were to pay to the mortgagees the successive annual instalments on or before the same date of the succeeding years on which the first instalment became payable and they were also to pay the annual revenue of the aforesaid properties that would become payable after they were restored to possession kist by kist, as
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top