1959 Supreme(P&H) 132
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Bhandari and D.Falshaw JJ.
Hukam Singh
Versus
Duli Lal Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 108 of 1956,
Decided On : AUGUST 19, 1959
Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, is applicable to legal representatives of debtors.
Headnote:
PUNJAB RELIEF OF INDEBTEDNESS ACT, 1934 - SECTION 30 - APPLICABILITY TO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DEBTORS - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
A legal representative of a deceased debtor filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934. The trial court applied Section 30 of the Act and granted a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiff, directing the mortgagee to redeem the property on payment of a certain sum. The mortgagee appealed, arguing that Section 30 was not applicable to legal representatives of debtors.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, was applicable to legal representatives of debtors. The court reasoned that the purpose of the Act was to protect borrowers from oppressive exactions of money-lenders, and that this purpose would be defeated if legal representatives of debtors were not allowed to invoke the protection of the Act.
Issues: Whether Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, was applicable to legal representatives of debtors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the language of Section 30 was plain and unambiguous, and that it conveyed a clear and definite meaning. The court further held that it was not open to a court of law to create an ambiguity when none existed and then to clear it up by statutory construction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the trial court.
A.N.Bhandari, J.
1. The one and only question which arises for decision in the present case is whether it is open to the legal representative of a debtor to invoke the help of Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934.
2. On 28-5-1897 one Lal Singh an occupancy tenant mortgaged his occupancy rights vvith ihe defendants in a sum of Rs. 400/- and on 20-12-1927 he created a further charge of Rs. 135/- on his property. Dull Chand, a son of the mortgagor, applied for the icstitution of the mortgage under the provisions of the Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938. The Special Collector appointed under the provisions of the said Act extinguished the original mortgage for Rs. 400/- and directed the plaintiff to secure the help of a civil Court for the redemption of the mortgage in respect of the charge of Rs. 135/-. The civil Court applied the provisions of section 30 of the Relief of Indebtedness Act, granted a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and directed the mortgagee to redeem the property on payment of a sum of Rs. 270/-. The order of the trial Court was upheld by the Additional District Judge of Gurgaon and later by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The mortgagee has appealed.
3. Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, is in the following terms:
"30. In any suit brought after the commencement of this Act in respect of a debt as defined in S. 7, advanced before the commencement of this Act no Court shall pass or execute a decree or give effect to an award in respect of such debt for a larger sum than twice the amount of the sum found by the Court to have been actually advanced. ....."
4. Mr. P. C. Pandit, who appears for the mortgagee, contends that the rule of Damdupat propounded by Section 30 represented above was intended for the benefit of the original debtor and not for the benefit of his legal representatives, for the expression "debt" as defined in the Act of 1934 includes all liabilities of a debtor in cash or in kind and the expression "debtor" as defined in the said Act means a person who owes a debt. The case of Sahibditta Mal v. Mohra Mal, AIR 1945 Lah 58 has been cited in support of this contention. In this case a question arose whether a legal representative of a debtor could apply to a Conciliation Board under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1934. A Division Bench of the High Court at Lahore, presided over by Harries C. J., expressed the view that the word "debtor" in Section 7 contemplates a person from whom a debt is personally due either because he himself incurred it or because otherwise he became liable to discharge it. The liability of a legal representative to pay the debt is not his personal liability and therefore the legal representative of a deceased debtor does not fall within the ambit of the expression "debtor" as defined in Section 7. In view of this authority it is contended that although it would have been open to Lal Singh, the original mortgagor who was a debtor, to invoke the help of this section, it is not open to his son who is not a "debtor" to seek shelter behind the rule of Damdupat,
5. I regret I am unable to concur in this contention. The Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, was enacted with the object of protecting borrowers whose needs or adversities compel them to borrow money against the oppressive exactions of money-lenders which often they are powerless to resist. It was accordingly enacted that no moneylender should charge a rate of interest for the use of money in excess of the interest set out in the body of the Act and that no Court should pass or execute a decree in respect of a debt for a larger sum than twice the amount of the sum found due by the Court to have been actually advanced, Although statutes relating to usuary ought to be construed in accordance with the principles applicable to the construction of statutes it must be remembered that such statutes establish a legislative policy which the