Back
1918 Supreme(SC) 24
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT HALDANE, LORD DUNEDIN, LORD SUMNER, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
RAJA OF PACHETE - Appellant
Versus
KUMUD NATH CHATTERJI - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court in Bengal.
Decided On : March 21, 1918.
Solicitor for appellant: E. Dalgado.
Solicitors for respondents: T. L. Wilson & Co.
Summary payments made to avoid land sale under administrative proceedings are recoverable if a separate suit for reversal is permitted. Additionally, a local land-relief act applies only to immovable property situated within the specific region defined by the statute's purpose and jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Patni Regulation (Bengal Regulation VIII of 1819), Section 14 - Recovery of money paid under summary proceedings - Money paid to prevent the sale of land under summary proceedings is recoverable if the law provides a right to bring a separate suit for reversal and damages - Such proceedings are administrative/ministerial in nature and do not constitute a full judicial trial where a failure to set up a defense would bar subsequent recovery.
(B) Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act - Scope and Application - A local act intended for the relief of landholders in a specific region applies only to immovable property situated within that region - Provisions affecting personal debts are ancillary to the main purpose of protecting land within the specified jurisdiction - The Act does not extend to immovable property located outside the boundaries of the region for which it was enacted.
Facts of the case:
A landholder borrowed money secured by a usufructuary mortgage of lands located outside a specific region. A manager appointed under a local Encumbered Estates Act reduced the interest rate on the mortgage. The successor to the landholder later collected surplus rents by initiating summary sale proceedings under a regional regulation. The payers, having paid the amounts to avoid sale, subsequently sued to recover the money, asserting it was not due following the manager's reduction of interest.
Findings of Court:
The court found that payments made under the summary provisions of the Patni Regulation do not preclude a subsequent suit for recovery because the regulation expressly allows for a separate action for reversal and damages. Furthermore, the court determined that the local Encumbered Estates Act is limited in scope to immovable property situated within the region it was designed to protect.
Issues: Whether money paid under summary proceedings to avoid sale is recoverable, and whether the powers of a manager appointed under a local Encumbered Estates Act extend to immovable property located outside the jurisdiction of that Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that summary proceedings before a Collector are administrative rather than judicial; thus, paying the demanded amount to stop a sale does not waive the right to recover the money in a civil court. Regarding the Act's scope, the court reasoned that the preamble, title, and specific jurisdictional clauses indicate the Act's primary purpose is the relief of landholders within a specific locality, meaning it cannot affect claims in rem for land situated outside that locality.
Result: Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (July 23, 1914) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan.
The suit was instituted by the respondents against the appellant to recover money which they had paid in respect of patni rents upon notice of summary proceedings under s. 14 of the Patni Regulation (Bengal Regulation VIII. of 1819) and under circumstances which are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
The Subordinate Judge made a decree for the amount claimed and that decision was affirmed by the High Court (Fletcher and Richardson JJ.).
1918. March 1, 4, 5. Upjohn, K.C., De Gruyther, K.C., and Parikh, for the appellant. Even if the reduction of the mortgage interest was ultra vires the manager under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, the respondents are not entitled to recover. Money paid under pressure of legal proceedings is not recoverable Marriot v. Hampden ((1797) 2 Sin. L. C, 12th ed.303.); Moore v. Vestry of Fulham . ([ 1895] 1 Q. B. 399.) Under s. 14 of Bengal Regulation VIII. of 1819 the respondents, had they chosen, could have deposited the amount claimed and had an adjudication, or they could have brought a suit for a reversal of the sale and for damages. Having elected to pay, they cannot recover the money. Apart from that principle the respondents had no ground for recovery; there was no evidence of a mistake of fact, nor that the claim was made by legal coercion. Seth Kanhaya Lal v. National Bank of India (( 1913) L. R. 40 I. A. 56.) is distinguishable, as in that case there was a trespass; here there was a genuine claim for the adjudication of the Court. Further, the manager under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act had power to modify the terms of the mortgage. Provided there is an encumbered estate within Chota Nagpur the manager can deal with all the mortgaged property of the holder in whatever part of British India it may be situated. This appears from a consideration of the provisions of the Act, especially s. 3, and of the purpose for which the Act was passed. The decision to the contrary in Bhicha Ram Sahu v. Bhishambhar Nath Sahi (16 Cal. L. J. 527.) is erroneous. In any event, so far as the claim was for money paid in respect of the property in Bankara there was no cause of action in the Burdwan district in which the suit was instituted Code of Civil Procedure (V. of 1908), s. 20.
Dunne, K.C., and T. B. W. Ramsay, for the respondents, were not called upon.
March 21. The judgment of their Lordships was- delivered by Viscount Haldane. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan. The respondents as plaintiffs brought a suit to recover Rs.6848.8, being the amount of patni rents for the years 1902- 1910, paid by them, as they alleged, although not due, in order to save their lands from sale under the powers conferred on zamindars by s. 14 of Regulation VIII. of 1819. The appellant, on whose behalf as having rights conferred on a zamindar it had been proposed to put the power of sale in force, contended, in the first place, that the money could not now be recovered, on the ground that, even if not legally due, it was paid voluntarily, or if otherwise than voluntarily, as the result of proceedings in which the respondents had not chosen to defend themselves, and which consequently could not be reviewed. In the second place, he contended that the amount paid was due under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (VI. of 1876).
The facts do not appear to be obscure, and if the appellants contentions are right on either of the points stated he may be entitled to succeed. As, however, their Lordships are of opinion that the argument addressed to them from the Bar fails on both points, they have not found it necessary to call on the respondents to support the judgments in the Courts below, either on the two questions referred to or on certain minor points which
