The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of an award under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act is contingent upon the jurisdiction of the Debt Settlement Board and the inclusion of the relevant debt in the debtor's application.

CHAKRAVARTTI, J. :- These are two Rules directed against the same order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bankura, on 23rd August 1946, whereby he stayed further proceedings in a mortgage suit, purporting to act under S. 33(a), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The learned Judge has held that the award pleaded by the mortgagor as a bar to the suit was without jurisdiction and void. But he had also held that if the award was void, the proceedings before the Board were in the eye of law still pending and consequently the mortgage suit was liable to be stayed under the provisions of S. 33.

2. Rule 1747 of 1946 was taken out by the mortgagee and his complaint is that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge that the suit must be stayed is erroneous.

3. Rule 1913 of 1946 was taken out by the mortgagor and he challenges the decision of the learned Judge that the award was without jurisdiction and void.

4. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to the facts in some detail. It appears that the transactions between the parties were numerous and of a complicated character. The first transaction was on 6th August 1920, when the mortgagor took a loan of Rs. 4999 from the mortgagee upon an earlier mortgage. On 4th April 1930, the mortgagor executed a simple money bond for a sum of Rs. 5182-10-6 pies which is said to have represented the resultant liability arising out of a number of previous loans. On 12th June 1933, the mortgagor executed an instalment mortgage bond for a sum of Rs. 19,700. This sure is said to have represented the amount due upon two previous bonds, as also a certain further amount as future interest. The bond provided that the amount would be payable in a number of instalments, but in case of default in the payment of any one of the instalments, interest at a certain rate would have to be paid and if there were three successive defaults, the whole amount would become due. On 19th December 1939, the mortgagor made an application under S. 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act to the special Debt Settlement Board at Bankura. In columns 6 of that application, he mentioned only two debts owing to the present mortgagee. One was the debt of Rs. 4,999 which was the consideration for the fired mortgage and the other was a debt of Rs. 1,999 which was one of the debts taken into consideration in arriving at the amount of the second bond. The bond of 1933 was not mentioned in column 6. What the mortgagor in fact did was that he inserted a long and somewhat rambling statement in Schedule E of the application wherein he stated that the mortgage bond for Rs. 19,700 was taken from him by undue influence and had and that as a matter of fact no such amount was due from him to the mortgagee. There appears to have been some controversy before the Special Debt Settlement Board as to what the amount of the debt was and the Board ultimately came to an informal decision that the amount was Rs. 7,329-1-0. Upon that finding the Board asked for the sanction of the Collector which in due course was granted.

5. An application was thereafter made to the Sub-Divisional Officer by the mortgagor for the transfer of the case from the Bankura Special Debt Settlement Board to the ordinary Board at Midnapore in Bankura. It is not disputed that neither of the parties resided within the jurisdiction of that Board, but the application was made on the ground that the President of the Board which had territorial jurisdiction in the case was related to the mortgagee and, therefore, the case could not properly be transferred to that Board. Toe application succeeded and the Sub-Divisional Officer made the necessary order, transferring the case to the ordinary Board at Midnapore. The Board at Midnapore eventually entered upon an adjudication of the liabilities of the mortgagor and eventually decided that the amount due from him to the present mortgagee was Rs. 3,000. An award embodying that decision