Judgment

SEN J.:- This appeal, by certificate, is directed against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated May 23, 1968, whereby it upheld a judgment of a single Judge of that Court dated March 16, 1966, dismissing the appellants writ petition to quash recovery proceedings initiated by the Collector, Azamgarh for realisation of the sum remaining due on account of a taccavi loan under S. 7 (1) of the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883.

2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are as follows : The appellant and his brother, Sashi Bhushan Gupta the sixth respondent, constituted a joint Hindu family owning extensive Zamindari properties, over several districts in United Provinces including Azmatgarh zamindari comprising of 34 villages. They owned an agricultural farm known as Mukundpur Farm situate in Azmatgarh zamindari. It is alleged that by virtue of a family settlement in 1940, the appellant even though younger in age, became the karta of the joint family.

3. By his application dated Feb. 25, 1947 the appellant applied for a taccavi loan of Rs. 1,22,000 in the prescribed form for improvement of Mukundpur Farm, to the Director of Agriculture, United Provinces through the Collector, Azamgarh. The property offered as security for advance of the loan was the zamindari rights in Azmatgarh zamindari comprising of the aforesaid 34 villages bearing a land revenue of Rs. 11,000/-. During the verification proceedings, the appellant by his application dated February 22, 1948, offered a security of his half share in Azmatgarh zamindari, which on enquiry by the Collector for the grant of sanction for the loan, was evaluated at Rs. 1,43,869,66p. The taccavi loan was duly sanctioned by the Government on Sept. 23, 1948.

4. The appellant having defaulted in payment of the loan, the Collector, Azamgarh by his order dated March 24, 1952 directed that the entire ilaqa lying in the Tahsil Sagri, district Azamgarh forming part of the hypothecated property be attached under S. 150 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. It, however seems that no attachment of any land situate in Tahsil Sagri forming part of the hypothecated property had, in fact, been effected either under S. 150 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act or S. 289 (1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It appears that some plots at the Mukundpur Farm lying in two villages, Mahnajpur and Ghaibipur, were later taken under the management of the Collector under the S. 290 of that Act and half share thereof let out to tenants, and the proceeds were adjusted towards the outstanding taccavi dues. It also appears that a sum of Rs. 38,951.08 P. representing the appellants half share of the compensation money due and payable to him were adjusted under S. 6 (e) of the Act towards the loan.

5. It is the appellants case that there was a partition between the appellant and his brother, the sixth respondent in 1951, and the hypothecated property was allocated to the share of the sixth respondent. This resulted in a compromise decree between the appellant and this brother, the sixth respondent, in Civil Suit No. 72 of 1952 under the terms of which, the sixth respondent undertook upon himself the liability to discharge the loan as the property offered in security had falled to his share. In compliance thereof, the sixth respondent actually paid Rs. 16,012.50 P. The Government was admittedly not impleaded as a party to the suit.

6. On July 15, 1952, the sixth respondent resiled from the terms of compromise and objected to the recovery proceedings being taken against him on the ground that the loan in question had not been taken by him nor had the appellant borrowed it in the capacity as karta of the joint family. He, indeed, denied the factum of partition. These objections were, however, overruled by the Sales Officer, Azamgarh on October 22, 1952.

7. On May 15, 1953, the appellant applied to the State Government for expunging his name from the debtor-sheet. The application was forwarded