( 1 ) THERE was a lease of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff and a simultaneous agreement by the plaintiff to reconvey the property to the defendant on payment of a named sum. The defendant applied to a Debt Settlement Board for settlement of his debts alleging tnat the transaction was a mortgage by conditional sale. The plaintift denied this contention and disputed the jurisdiction of the Board to decide the matter. The Board made an award settling the debt on the footing that the transaction created a mortgage liability amounting to a debt. An appeal and a revision petition by the plaintiff failed and tni award became final. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit praying for declaration that the lease and thi agreement did not create the relationship of debtor am creditor and that the award of the Board is void and with-out jurisdiction and for consequential injunction. The defendant pleaded that the award of the Board was conclusive and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Trial Court accepted the defendant's contention and dismissed the suit. The decision was confirmed by the first Appellate Court. On second appeal Chander, J. held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and remanded the suit for trial. On further appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patern the Division Bench agreed with the conclusion of Chunder, J. , but thought that this conclusion was in conflict with the decision in Bazler Rahaman Khandakar v. Amiruddin, 48 Cal WN 699 : (AIR 1944 Cal 401 ). Accordingly the Division Bench referred the case to the Full Bench stating that the following questions arise for decision by the Full Bench :"i. Whether the question as to the existence or otherwise of a liability can be determined by a Civil Court after it has been decided by a Bengal Agricultural Debtors Board that the supposed liability was a debt? ii. Was 48 Cal WN 699 : (AIR 1944 Cal 401), correctly decided?"

( 2 ) THE Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935 created a special tribunal for the settlement of debts of agricultural debtors. An application for settlement of debts may be made to the Board under Section 8 and the Board may make an award settling the debt as provided in Section 25. Sections 33 to 36 bar the institution and continuance of suits and execution proceedings In respect of debts included in an application to the Board or in an award made by ft and also render the decisions of the Civil Courts nugatory when they come in conflict with the orders of the Board regarding the debt.

Section 38 bars appeal and revision against a decision of the Board except as provided by tne Act. Sections 40 and 40-A provide for appeal and revision, by Section 40 (6) the decision of the apppellate officer is made final subject to the power of revision of the District Judge under Section 40-A. Section 20 empowers the Board to decide whether a person is a debtor or not. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a person is a debtor or not and its determination of the question is final, see Sailabala Dasjaya v. Nityananda Sarkar, 42 Ca! WN 415 : (AIR 1938 Cal 375 ). Section 18 empowers the Board to decide whe-ther the debt exists and to determine its amount. But this section does not give the Board exclusive power to determine whether a particular liability amounts to a debt, nor was such power given by Section 20 as it stood originally, and if a Civil Court found that there was no liability amounting to a debt it could treat any order made by the Board in the matter as void for want of jurisdiction, see Nur Mia v. Noakhali Nath Bank Ltd. , 43 Cal WN 322 : (AIR 1939 Cal 298), Surendra Nath Chakravarty v. Haran Chandra Chakravarty, 49 Cal WN 592 : (AIR 1946 Cal 53), see also Matilal Saha v. Chandra Kanta Sarkar, 51 Cal WN 1 = (AIR 1947 Cal 1) (SB ). Section 20 was amended by the amending Act of 1940 and the amended section empowers the Board to decid