ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M.C. DESAI, CJ., Mithan Lal, J.
NAND RAM CHHOTEY LAL - Appellant
Versus
KISHORI RAMAN SINGH - Respondents
Civil Revn. 1438 Of 1955
Decided On : 12/26/1961
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision by Messrs, Nand Ram Chottey Lal, decree-holders, has been filed against the orders passed by the Special Judge, first class, Ali-garh, reducing the debts of the applicants from Rs. 6,46,000/- to Rs. 1,84,571/- under Section 4 of the U. P, Zamindars debt Reduction Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act ).
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the applicants advanced a sum of Rs. 5,11,000/- on the basis of a mortgage dated 20th June, 1924, and another sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- on the basis of another mortgage dated 23rd May, 1929 to Raja Datt Prasad Singh. The properties mortgaged in the first deed consisted of Zamindari properties of 56 villages and the right to receive Malikana in the sum of Rs. 23,802/- per annum from the Government treasuries at Mathura and Aligarh. In the second mortgage 35 other villages besides the 56 villages of the first mortgage all in the districts of Mathura and Aligarh, constituted the mortgage property.
( 3 ) THE original mortgagor Raja Dutt Prasad Singh died some time in the year 1932 and the estate was taken under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. The Court of Wards had first filed a suit under Section 33 U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act for accounting and declaration of the amount due in respect of both the Mortgages. The liability of the mortgagor was determined on 21st October, 1936, at a sum of Rs. 7,00,108/- and though the decree-holder could claim a decree for the sum determined in these proceedings, yet he did not do so. About a week after, on 28th october, 1936, the Court of Wards filed an application under Section 4 of the ,u. P. Encumbered estates Act impleading all the creditors including the applicants. The claims of the creditors were determined including that of the present applicants. We are not concerned in this case with the determination of other claims. The claim of the present applicants was determined on, 10-3-1949, at a sum of Rs. 6,46,000/- which constituted the principal amount of the two mortgages. After the decree liquidation, proceedings were started which remained stayed either due to the orders of the Government or the; passing of U. P. Act X of 1950 pending legislation regarding the abolition of the zamindari.
( 4 ) THE estate of Raja Kishori Raman Singh (hereinafter called the judgment debtor) was released from the superintendence of the Court of Wards by orders dated 14th January, 1953. On 24th august, 1954 the present applicants (hereinafter called the decree-holder or the creditor) filed an application under Section 4 of U. P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Act for reduction of decretal amount and for satisfaction of the amount out of the compensation bonds and rehabilitation grant payable to the judgment-debtor. We were told by the learned counsel for the respondent that due to the filing of this application a temporary injunction was also issued restraining the judgment-debtor from receiving compensation bonds and rehabilitation grant tin the decision of the proceedings under the U. P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Act. When this application came up for hearing the learned counsel for the decree, holder made a statement that he did not want to press the application under Section 4 of the U. P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Act. This request was refused by the Court mainly on the ground that it was the duty of the Special Judge under section 19-A of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, as amended to reduce the amount to accordance with the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the decretal amount was reduced to RS. 1,84,571/- from Rs. 6,46,000/ -. The Court further held that malikana was also an estate and so there was no question of apportionment of the, debt and the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act would apply. It is against this order that the present application in revision has been filed.
( 5 ) IN the original petition in revision the constitutionality of the Act was challenged due to contraventon of Articles 19 (1) (f) and 31 (
State of Bombay v Bhanji Munji
Vikram Narain Singh v. Govt. of the State of Uttar Pradesh
Jugal Kishore v. Labour Commissioner, Bihar
Kavalappa Kottarathil Cochuni v.States of Madras and Kerala
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India
Keshayan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh
REFERRED TO : Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P.
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India
Dwarkadas Shrinvas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.