Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, VENKATESAM
Bhadurmal - Appellant
Versus
Bizaatunnisa Begum - Respondent
Decided On : 11-12-63
JAGIRDAR DEBT SETTLEMENT ACT - SECTION 20, 28, 35 - LIMITATION - ACKNOWLEDGMENT - PAYMENT - SAVING OF LIMITATION - SCALING DOWN OF DEBT - PAYING CAPACITY OF DEBTOR.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a creditor, filed an appeal against the decision of the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Board (Board) which held that four out of five debts owed to him by the respondent, a jagirdar-debtor, were time-barred. The appellant also challenged the Board's decision regarding the remaining debt of Rs. 18,000, claiming that it was also time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the four debts were indeed time-barred as there was no evidence to prove that the payments made were verified and signed by the debtor or her agent, as required under Section 20 proviso of the Limitation Act. However, the court found that the debt of Rs. 18,000 was not time-barred as the last payment was made on 14/09/1950, which was within the limitation period. The court also held that the Board erred in not allowing the appellant to prove certain documents filed by him, including letters from the debtor acknowledging the debt, and in not examining the debtor as a witness.
Issues: 1. Whether the four debts were time-barred. 2. Whether the debt of Rs. 18,000 was time-barred. 3. Whether the Board erred in not allowing the appellant to prove certain documents and in not examining the debtor as a witness.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the four debts were time-barred as there was no evidence to prove that the payments made were verified and signed by the debtor or her agent, as required under Section 20 proviso of the Limitation Act. 2. The court held that the debt of Rs. 18,000 was not time-barred as the last payment was made on 14/09/1950, which was within the limitation period. The court also held that the Board erred in not allowing the appellant to prove certain documents filed by him, including letters from the debtor acknowledging the debt, and in not examining the debtor as a witness. 3. The court held that the Board erred in not allowing the appellant to prove certain documents and in not examining the debtor as a witness.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Board for reconsideration. The Board was directed to determine whether the debt of Rs. 18,000 was barred by limitation, to apply the provisions of Section 28 and 35 of the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Act, and to consider the question of scaling down the debt based on the debtor's paying capacity.
Key Points: - The four debts were held time-barred due to lack of evidence that payments were verified and signed by the debtor or her agent, as required under Section 20 proviso of the Limitation Act (!) . - The Rs. 18,000 debt was not time-barred because the last payment on 14/09/1950 falls within the limitation period, and the Board’s handling of evidence and debtor examination impacts this finding (!) . - The Board erred in not allowing the creditor to prove certain letters acknowledging the debt and in not examining the debtor; the matter is remanded to apply Sections 28 and 35, determine if the debt is barred by limitation, and consider scaling down after assessing paying capacity (!) (!) . - The cross-objections and the scope of Civil Procedure Code provisions under Section 51 are addressed, allowing admissibility of objections under Order 41, Rule 22 in this appellate context (!) . - The matter is remanded to the Board for further consideration, including whether to apply Section 28, Section 35, and to determine paying capacity and potential scaling down, with costs to abide by the result (!) .
( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant to the maintainability of the cross-objections. It Is contended that under Section 51 of the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, and since Sections 47 to 49 provide only for an appeal, it must be deemed that the provisions of the Civil Procedural Code which deal with the filing of cross-objections are specifically excluded. We find it difficult to accept this contention. What Section 51 provides is for the application of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to all proceedings under Chapter III, unless some other procedure is prescribed with respect to any particular matter. The provisions of Sections 47 to 49 deal with appeals and Court-fees and grounds of appeal and in so far as this provision is concerned, It must be deemed that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in respect thereof are (sic) (not ?) applicable. But that does not prevent the application of Order 41, Rule 22 which provides for objections to the decree or award, as if he had preferred a separate appeal. Having regard to the general scope of the application of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code under Section 51, we cannot accept the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant that Order 41, Rule 22 does not apply to a case of appeal filed under Section 47.
( 3 ) THE next point is one relating to limitation. It is not denied, and the learned advocate for the appellant was not able to contend otherwise, that the debts in items 2 to 5 are time-barred. But the learned advocate now insists that he may be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of these debts also. We cannot allow him to adduce any additional evidence because the evidence on record is sufficient for the disposal of this question. Trough certain amounts have been noted as having been paid, no evidence has been adduced to prove, that they have been verified and signed by the debtor or her agent which is necessary under Section 20 proviso of the Limitation Act.
( 4 ) NOW in respect of the debt of Rs. 18,000. 00 evidenced by the document of 12th Meher 1356 F. the last payment is shown in the accounts as on 14/09/1950. If this entry is proved, t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
