Back
1925 Supreme(SC) 46
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SHAW, LORD CARSON, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
SOURENDRA MOHAN SINHA - Appellant
Versus
HARI PRASAD (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Patna.
Decided On : July. 21. 1925.
Solicitors for appellants:Barrow, Rogers & Nevill. Solicitors for respondents: Watkins & Hunter.
A court exercising jurisdiction in a protected district must apply statutory usury limits on interest. Additionally, under Section 11 of the CPC, a personal decree is barred if such relief could and should have been sought in a previous suit based on the same mortgage bond.
Headnote:(A) Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 - Section 6 - Sonthal Parganas Settlement (Amendment) Regulation, 1908 - Section 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11 - Interest and Usury - A court exercising jurisdiction in a protected district is bound to apply local usury laws limiting interest and prohibiting compound interest, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. (Paras 20, 24)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11 - Res Judicata - A claim for a personal decree based on the same mortgage bond as a previous suit is barred if such relief might and ought to have been claimed in the former suit, as per Explanation IV to Section 11. (Paras 35, 36)
(C) Hindu Law - Joint Family Liability - Debts contracted by ancestors for legal necessity or family benefit bind the joint family property and descendants, regardless of whether the debt was contracted jointly with other family members. (Paras 41, 43)
Facts of the case:
A suit was instituted to enforce a mortgage bond for a principal sum and interest. The mortgaged properties were located across two districts, one being a protected region with specific settlement regulations. A previous suit on the same bond had been dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. The current suit sought both a sale of property and a personal decree.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the amended regulations no longer excluded the civil court's jurisdiction as the land was not under active settlement. However, the court was bound by local usury laws limiting total interest to the principal amount and disallowing compound interest. The personal decree was found to be barred by the principle of res judicata.
Issues: Whether the civil court had jurisdiction over the suit; whether local usury laws limiting interest applied; whether the claim for a personal decree was barred by a previous suit; and whether the joint family was liable under the applicable school of Hindu law.
Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction is determined by whether the land is currently under settlement under the relevant regulations. Once jurisdiction is established in a protected district, the court must enforce statutory limits on interest. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, parties cannot split a cause of action; reliefs that could have been sought in a prior suit on the same instrument are barred in subsequent litigation.
Result: Appeal of the plaintiffs dismissed; appeal of the defendants allowed in part; personal decree set aside; decree for sale of mortgaged property affirmed for the reduced amount.
Consolidated Appeals (No. 136 of 1924) from a decree of the High Court (April 12, 1922) varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur (June 17, 1918).
The suit was brought by the above named appellants to enforce a mortgage, dated December 21, 1896, to secure Rs.3,50,000 of which Rs.l,36,142 were advanced in cash, the balance being the amount due under a previous bond. The greater part of the mortgaged properties was situate in the Sonthal Parganas, where the mortgagors resided, the remainder in the district of Bhagalpur ; the mortgage was registered in Bhagalpur.
The appeal raised questions as to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge at Bhagalpur having regard to the Sonthal Parganas Settlement (Amendment) Regulation, 1908, and (if there were jurisdiction) as to the effect of s. 6 of the SONTHAL PARGANAS SETTLEMENT REGULATION , 1872, upon the amount of interest recoverable.
The facts and the relevant provisions of the Legislature appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Subordinate Judge made a preliminary decree for sale for Rs.15,27,997, and a personal decree for Rs.44,164 on account of principal and interest.
Both parties appealed to the High Court. The learned judges who heard the appeal (Dawson Miller
C.J. and Bucknill J.) varied the above decree by passing a decree for sale for Rs,3,88,673 and making a personal decree for Rs.23,181.
1925. June 15, 16, 18. De Gruyther K.C., and Dube for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Sir George Lowndes K.C., and E. B. Raikes for the defendants-respondents.
July 21. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR JOHN EDGE. These are two consolidated appeals from a decree of April 12, 1922, of the High Court at Patna, which varied a decree of June 17, 1918, of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur.
The suit in which these consolidated appeals have arisen was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur on February 5, 1915. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 11,81,811 principal and interest alleged to be then due under a mortgage bond of December 21, 1896, for Rs.3,50,000, of which Rs. 1,36,142 were advanced in cash, the balance being money alleged to be due under a previous bond of October 3, 1883, and for moneys advanced at various times, and for interest at various rates. The bond in suit provided that the principal sum of Rs.3,50,000 was to carry 7 1/2 per centum compound interest with yearly rests. The principal was repayable in the month of Phagon, 1310 Fasli, the last day of which month was March 14, A.D. 1903. The bond was executed by all the adult male members of the joint family, the members of which family lived in the Sonthal Parganas, and was also executed by them on behalf of all the minor members of the joint family as their guardians. It was intended that the bond should bind all the members of the joint family and the property mentioned in the bond. All the defendants, except as later in this paragraph is mentioned, are members of the joint family. The joint family is governed by the school of Hindu law of the Mithila. The grantee of the bond, who was the mortgagee, was Surja Narain Singh, Bahadur, of the District of Bhagalpur, by profession a pleader, who had occasionally acted for the joint family, and knew its financial position; he died long before this suit was brought, and the plaintiffs are his representatives and are the persons in whom are vested his rights under the bond. The defendant, Dwarka Prasad Singh, was by birth a member of the joint family. Since the bond was made he was adopted into another family. The other defendants, who are not members of the joint family, claim through the joint family. The executants of the bond, in addition to granting the rights of a mortgagee to Surja Narain Singh, declared by the bond that they should jointly and severally pay the principal and interest, simple and compound, for which the bond was given. A previous suit on the same mortgage bond of December 21, 1896, had been broug
