Jagat Narayan, J.—This is a second appeal by one Jitendra Sen son of Raja Hari Sen, ex-Istimrardar of Pisangan in the erstwhile State of Ajmer against a decree of the District Judge Ajmer confirming a decree of the Civil Judge Ajmer in a suit for recovery of money.

2. The relevant facts for the purpose of this appeal briefly are that Raja Hari Sen father of the present appellant took a loan from the respondents in 1949. An accounting took place on 22nd May, 1952 and a fresh agreement was executed by Hari Sen on that date for a sum of Rs. 3,501/- in their favour. Hari Sen died shortly afterwards on 20th October 1952. His son Jitendra Sen became Istimrardar on his death. The present suit was instituted against him for the recovery of the money due under the agreement dated 22nd May, 1952. The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground that no decree could be passed against him in respect of the liability incurred by Hari Sen in view of the provisions of sec. 29 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877 which runs as follows—

"Decrees for money not to be executed after death of Istimrardar or passed against representative—

Notwithstanding anything contained in sec. 234 or sec. 252 of the Code of Civil Procedure or in any other enactment in force at the time this Regulation is passed, no decree for money against an Istimrardar shall be executed after his death, and no decree for money shall be passed against any person as the representative of a deceased Istimrardar.

Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the enforcement of a lien or other charge against any property not being part of an Istimrari estate."

3. Sec. 50 and 52 of the present Code of Civil Procedure correspond to sec. 234 and 252 of the old Code.

4. The Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877 was repealed under sec.9(l) (a) of the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, 1957, which came into force with effect from 15.6.58. It contained a saving clause under sec. 9(4) the relevant part of which runs as follows—

"In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provision contained in sub-sec(3) any............property acquired............before the commencement of this Act in pursuance of a right conferred,............ by the provisions of the enactments and laws hereby repealed.........shall not be affected by such repeal........notwithstanding that such......property........is repugnant to, or inconsistent with or could not be acquired under, the provisions of the Rajasthan revenue laws."

4. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the right conferred on him under sec.29 of the Ajmer Land & Revenue Regulation, 1877 was saved by this clause. The lower appellate court was of the opinion that it was not so saved. I am however of the opinion that this right is saved.

5. On the death of Hari Sen on 22nd October, 1952 a right accrued under this provision in favour of Jitendra Sen who succeeded him. That right was that the property which he inherited from his father was not liable to be attached and sold to enforce an unsecured liability incurred by the latter during his life-time. Such right is, without doubt, property. As this right was acquired by Jitendra Sen before the repeal of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation it was saved under sec. 9(4) of the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, 1957.

6. On behalf of the respondents it was however contended that the above provision of law became void on the coming into force of the Constitution as it is hit by Art. 14, being unreasonably discriminatory, and by Article 19(1)(f), being an excessive invasion of their fundamental right to carry on the profession of money lending. Reliance was placed on Budh Singh Vs. Sahabzada Mohd. Yaseen (1) and Mukan Chand Vs. Rao Raja Inder Singh(2).

7. In Budh Singh Vs. Sahebzada a law of the Tonk State exempting houses belonging to members of the Royal family of Tonk from attachment and sale in execution of a decree was held to be void on the ground that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document