SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(AP) 103

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : UMAMAHESWARAM
Gurajada Vijaya Lakshmamma - Appellant
Versus
Yarlagadda Padmanabhan - Respondent
Decided On : 11-25-54

In a suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. , the defendant can attack the decree or the debt on which it is based.

Headnote:

O. 21, R. 63, CIVIL P. C. - SUIT UNDER - SCOPE - DEFENDANT CAN ATTACK DECREE OR DEBT ON WHICH IT IS BASED - FRAUD OR COLLUSION - CAN BE PLEADED.

Fact of the Case:

In a suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. , the plaintiff-decree-holder sought to attach the properties of the first defendant as belonging to his judgment-debtor, who is the second defendant in that suit, in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 215 of 1945. The first defendant filed a claim petition under O. 21, R. 58, Civil P. C. and her claim was allowed. The plaintiff-decree-holder consequently filed O. S. No. 61 of 1950 seeking to set aside the Order made on the claim petition. One of the pleas raised in that suit by the first defendant was that the debt due to the plaintiff was a bogus one and that the decree obtained by him was vitiated by fraud and collusion.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that in a suit filed under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. it is open to the defendant to attack the decree or the debt on which it is based. The court further held that when the decree-holder seeks to seize the petitioners properties in execution of a decree, she is certainly entitled to raise all defences open to her.

Issues: Whether in a suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. , the defendant can attack the decree or the debt on which it is based.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The nature and scope of a suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. has been well set out by George Rankin J. in -- Najimunnessa Bibi v. Nacharaddin Sardar, AIR 1924 Cal 744 at p. 748 (A), and is in the following terms: "the suit, if brought, is not limited by any special standard of evidence or of law. The claimant may, if necessary, thrash out his title in the fullest and most ultimate sense. But, if the title which he claims is not the ultimate full title to the property, then, of course, he must be content to assert whatever the title claimed may be. So, too, the decree-holder may make out his debtors title exactly as if it were a suit for possession by the judgment-debtor". * In -- Masina Bavamma v. Yendru Papanna, AIR 1936 Mad 971 at pp. 972--973 (B), Venkataramana Rao J. , held: "when a suit is instituted under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. , it is not merely a continuation of the claim proceeding, but what is essentially litigated is a question of title". * The decision of the Bombay High Court in -- Gulibai v. Jagannath Galvankar, 10 Bom 659 (E) was dissented from by the Madras High Court in 17 Mad 389 (D) and it was held that, in their opinion, S. 283 (which corresponds to O. 21, R. 63, C. P. C. of the old Code) (Act 14 of 1882 ). did not introduce an exception to the rule that the defendanti is bound to set up every defence available to him.

Final Decision: The court set aside the findings recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge on Issues 4 and 5 and allowed the Civil Revision Petition.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The case involves a suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. where a decree-holder sought to attach properties of the first defendant as belonging to the judgment-debtor [2000269650001]. - The first defendant pleaded that the debt due to the plaintiff was bogus and the decree was vitiated by fraud and collusion [2000269650001]. - The Subordinate Judge initially held that in a suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C., it is not open to the defendant to attack the decree or the debt [2000269650001]. - The High Court held that it is open to the defendant in such a suit to attack the decree or the debt on which it is based [2000269650001][2000269650002]. - When a decree-holder seeks to seize a petitioner's properties in execution of a decree, the petitioner is entitled to raise all available defences [2000269650002][2000269650003]. - A suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. is essentially a litigation of a question of title, not merely a continuation of claim proceedings [2000269650002]. - A third person or stranger to a judgment whose rights are injuriously affected may show in a collateral proceeding that the judgment was procured through fraud or collusion [2000269650004]. - Under Section 44 of the Evidence Act, a petitioner may establish that a decree sought to be executed against them was obtained by fraud or collusion [2000269650004]. - The court noted that properties not belonging to judgment-debtors should not be proceeded against based on decrees obtained by fraud or collusion [2000269650004]. - The High Court set aside the findings of the Subordinate Judge on additional issues and allowed the Civil Revision Petition [2000269650008].

Whether in a suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C., the defendant can attack the decree or the debt on which it is based?


UMAMAHESWARAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the findings recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam on additional Issues 4 and 5 in O. S. No. 61 of 1950 on his file. ( The plaintiff-decree-holder sought to attach the properties of the first defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 1950 (Petitioner herein) as belonging to his judgment - debtor who is the second defendant in that suit, in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 215 of 1945 (District Munsifs Court of Gudivada ). The petitioner herein filed a claim petition (E. A. No. 462 of 1949) under O. 21, R. 58, Civil P. C. and her claim was allowed. The plaintiff-decree, holder consequently filed O. S. No. 61 of 1950 seeking to set aside the Order made on the claim petition. One of the pleas raised in that suit by the petitioner herein was that the debt due to the plaintiff was a bogus one and that the decree obtained by him was vitiated by fraud and collusion. On that pleading, additional issues 4 and collusion. On that pleading, additional issues 4 and 5 were raised. The learned Subordinate Judge held that in a suit filed under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. it is not open to the defendant to attack the decree or the debt on which it is based. The present revision petition is, therefore, filed by the first defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 1950, Sub-Court. Masulipatam.

( 2 ) FROM the facts stated above, it is clear that the claim preferred by the petitioner herein was upheld by the executing Court, and the decree - holder had consequently to file the suit under O. 21 R. 63, Civil P. C. In such a suit, he has to establish that the properties sought to be attached belong to the judgment-debtor and it is certainly open to the defendant to raise all defence to non-suit the plaintiff. If the defendant is in a position to prove that the plaintiff is not at all a creditor or that the decree obtained by him was one obtained by fraud or collusion, the suit will have to fail. I am not, however, concerned with the question whether the suit having been filed in a representative capacity, it is not open to the other creditors to continue the suit or not.

( 3 ) THE nature and scope of a suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. , has been well set out by George Rankin J. in -- Najimunnessa Bibi v. Nacharaddin Sardar, AIR 1924 Cal 744 at p. 748 (A), and is in the following terms :"the suit, if brought, is not limited by any special standard of evidence or of law. The claimant may, if necessary, thrash out his title in the fullest and most ultimate sense. But, if the title which he claims is not the ultimate full title to the property, then, of course, he must be content to assert whatever the title claimed may be. So, too, the decree-holder may make out his debtors title exactly as if it were a suit for possession by the judgment-debtor". In -- Masina Bavamma v. Yendru Papanna, AIR 1936 Mad 971 at pp. 972--973 (B), Venkataramana Rao J. , held :"when a suit is instituted under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C. , it is not merely a continuation of the claim proceeding, but what is essentially litigated is a question of title". Elaborating that point, the learned Judge observed as follows :"for example, it, may be the claimant in the claim proceedings would have succeeded by merely proceedings would have succeded by merely showing that he was a trespasser, but the decree-holder can establish in a suit which he filed under O. 21, R. 63, that the trespass was not of sufficient duration to confer any title in the successful claimant and the property still belonged to the judgment-debtor and that therefore he is entitled to attach the property as that of the judgment-debtor". The learned Judge followed the observations of Wallance J. , in -- Subramanyam v. Narasimham. AIR 1929 Mad 323 (C), which runs thus :"the claim enquiry merely settles whether the claimant is in possession the property in his own behalf or on behalf of the judgment-debtor. But the claimant in his suit has to establish righ







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top