Ramsingh vs Gopi - 1983 Supreme(MP) 649

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.D. Jain
For the Respondent: N. K. Jain

Headnote:(1) Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (MP) – S.8 (3) and 74 – determination of debts and its discharge – S.8 (3) is the only provision – S.14 has no application – application not made within time – liable to be dismissed.
       (2) Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Janjati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (M.P.) – S.2 (4) and 2 (10) – 'debt' neither subsisting on appointed day nor secured 'debt' – provisions of the Act not applicable.
        Short Note
       1. The petitioner is in possession of lands Khasra Nos. 367, 368 and 508 of village Prithipura, Tahsil Ambah, district Morena. The respondent No.1 Gopi claims these lands to be his ancestral property. He has filed a civil suit against the petitioner for possession of these lands and also for mesne profits. The suit was filed in the year 1976. The suit is being contested by the petitioner. After the institution of the suit, the respondent No.1 filed an application before the Debt Relief Court presided over by the Sub – Divisional Officer claiming that the land in question belonged to his grand – father Ramsingh, who about 19 years prior to the filing of that application obtained a loan of Rs. 300/ – from the petitioner and in lieu of that loan the petitioner has taken possession of the land. It was alleged that the respondent No. 1 is prepared to pay back Rs.300/ – with interest and therefore prayed for appropriate relief. It will be useful to reproduce certain averments made by the respondent No.1 in that application.
        ^^vkosnd ds ckck us vukosnd jkeflag iq= djuflag fuoklh eSljiwjk ls vkt yxHkx 16 o"kZ iwoZ 300 :Ik;k m/kkj fy;k Fkk ftldh ,ot esa iwjh Hkwfe ØŒ367] 368 ,oa 508 ij vukosnd jkeflag us dCtk dj fy;k gS vkSj og Hkwfe dks NksM+us dks rS;kj ugha gSA
       2. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the Debt Relief Court and also submitted that the claim was barred by time. The Sub• Divisional Officer by its order Annexure P – 19 passed under Sec.14 of the M.P. Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Janjati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam 1967 held that the respondent No.1 was a debtor and has discharged him of the debt. He has further directed that the possession of the land be delivered to the respondent No.1. In the order, he has observed that the petitioner has manoeuvered to some how grab the land of the respondent No.1.The Collector in its revisional order dated 11 – 8 – 1982 (Annexure P – 12) has upheld the order of the Debt Relief Court. In para 5 of the order, the learned Collector has held that the land was mortgaged by the grand – father of the respondent No.1 with the petitioner. The petitioner by his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order Annexure P – 11 passed by the Sub – Divisional Officer of the Debt Relief Court and the order of the Collector dated 11 – 8 – 1982. (Annexure P – 12).
       3. Held: Although a number of points were urged in support of the petition, we are of opinion that this petition can be disposed of only upon a finding that the application before the Debt Relief Court filed by the respondent No.1 was beyond time. The Adhiniyam was also made applicable to Anusuchit Jati (Scheduled Castes) from 30th June 1973. In application to the schedule castes therefore the said Adhiniyam should be deemed to have been promulgated from that date. Section 8 sub – section (3) is the only provision under the Adhiniyam which permits a debtor to apply to the Debt Relief Court for determination of his debt and for its discharge in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam. Such an application is required to be made within sixty days of the establishment of the Debt Relief Court. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the application could also be filed under section 14. Obviously, the application has not been made within sixty days as contemplated by sub – section (3) of section 8. That being so, we are clearly of opinion that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Debt Relief Court was barred by time.
       4. There is also substance in the petitioner's contention that the debt in question was not a secured debt. It is also doubtful if any debt subsisted on the appointed day as contemplated by section 2 (4) of the Adhiniyam. It is clear from the averment of the plaint filed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure P – 2) which was filed much before the initiation of proceedings before the Debt Relief Court that the respondent No.1 claimed that the petitioner has unathorisedly taken possession of the land in question. The plaint makes no mention of any such debt. Possession therefore has been claimed on the basis of title. Again, the plaint is conspicuously silent as to securing the alleged debt either by creation of a mortgage or charge in respect of these lands. Even the application filed in the Debt Relief Court does not speak of the any charge or mortgage. We have earlier quoted the relevant part of that application. What it states is that the petitioner has taken possession of the land in lieu of the alleged loan. This is not the same thing to say that it is the respondent's predecessor who had either mortgaged the land or created charge in respect of these lands. We are clearly of opinion that both the lower Tribunals namely the Debt Relief Court and the Collector have completely off shot the mark and have gone beyond the scope of the Act and the case put up by the parties. The Collector was wrong in saying that any debt was secured. Their orders exhibit error apparent on the face of the record for their failure to consider the different provisions of the Adhiniyam as referred to above and the allegations in the plaint (Annexure P – 2) and the application (Annexure P – 5). In our opinion, the record and the admissions made by the respondent No.1 in the plaint themselves indicate that no debt ever existed as alleged or that any such debt subsisted on the appointed day. We are further of opinion that the alleged debt was never secured and in no case it can be said to be a secured debt within the meaning of section 2 (10) of the Adhiniyam. Question of discharging the respondent No.1 from the alleged debt and directing the petitioner to hand over possession of these lands to him therefore does not arise. In any case, we are clearly of opinion that the debt even if there be any, was never secured either by any mortgage or otherwise and, therefore, question of delivery of possession was wholly immaterial and the two orders impugned in this petition directing delivery of possession, in no event can be sustained.
       Petition allowed.