Judgment

SIKRI, JJ.-

( 1 ) , J. : This is an appeal directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which granted a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c ).

( 2 ) ONE Mukanchand, respondent No. 1 in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder) obtained a mortgage decree on 12/02/1954, for Rs. 1,14,581/14/6, with further interest at 6 Per Cent per annum, against one Rao Raja Inder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the judgment-debtor ). The mortgage money was advanced under three mortgages, and the mortgaged properties consisted of 2 jagirs and some non-jagir immovable property. The latter property was sold in execution and Rs. 33,750. 00 paid to the decree-holder in partial satisfaction of the decree. On 14/12/1956, the decree-holder filed an execution petition in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, for Rs. 99, 965/3/6, praying for attachment of the amount of compensation and rehabilitation grant which would be paid to the judgment debtor on account of resumption of his jagir. This case was registered as Execution Case No. 12/57. On 29/07/1957, the judgment-debtor made an application before the District Judge, Jodhpur, to the effect that the decretal amount should be reduced in accordance with S. 5 of the Rajasthan Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act (Rajasthan Act IX of 1957 ). On 31/07/1957, the judgment-debtor submitted another application claiming that only half of his total jagir compensation and rehabilitation grant money was liable to attachment under S. 7 of the said Act. The decree holder, in his reply to those petitions, urged that the provisions relied on were ultra vires the Constitution of India, being in contravention of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) ON 3/12/1957, the decree-holder filed a petition under Art. 228 of the Constitution, praying that the execution case No. 12 of 1957, pending in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, be withdrawn from that Court to the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court transferred the case to its file, and thereafter issued notice to the State of Rajasthan, as the constitutionality of the said Act had been challenged. By its judgment, the High Court held that apart from the latter part of S. 2 (e) excluding certain debts - hereinafter referred to as the impugned part - and S. 7 (2) of the Act, the rest of the Act was valid. The State applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and so did the decree-holder. On the certificates being granted, two appeals were filed in this Court. The appeal of Mukanchand (Civil Appeal No. 508/61) was by order dated 23/04/1962, of this Court, held to have abated. Therefore, we are not concerned with the validity of the other provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) ALTHOUGH the validity of the other provisions is not now in question, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act, because they have a bearing on the question of the validity of the impugned part of S. 2 (e) and S. 7 (2) of the Act; and these are reproduced below :

"preamble - To provide for the scaling down of debts of jagirdars whose jagir lands have been resumed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 -

S. 2 (e) - "debt" means an advance in cash or in kind and includes any transaction which is in substance a debt but does not include an advance as aforesaid made on or after the first day of January, 1949 or a debt due to :-

(I) the Central Government or Government of any State;

(II) a Local Authority;

(III) a Scheduled Bank;

(IV) a Co-operative Society;

(V) a waqf, trust or endowment for a charitable or religious purpose only; or

(VI) a person, where the debt was advanced on his behalf by the Court of Wards.

S. 3 Reduction of secured debt at the time of passing of decree. . . . (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement or document, in any suit to which this Act applies relating to a secured debt, the court shall, after the amount due has been ascertained, but before passing a decree, procee