1140 of 1966 which has been preferred by the Bank involves a very short point.
This pronote was endorsed in favour of the Bank and thereafter the sum of Rs,99,500 which had been withdrawn pending the sanction of the Committee was debited to the cash credit account opened in the name of defendant No.
The jagirdars were declared entitled to a share in the jagir net income which was inalienable except with the previous sanction of the Government.
The questions referred were as follows 1, Whether on a true companystruction of s. 25 1 of the Act, it has application to suits, appeals and applications for execution and proceedings other than revisional in respect of debts number existing on or before the numberified date under section II of the Act, pending in any civil or revenue companyrt involving the questions as set out in that section ?
Defendant No.
Defendant No.
After the companyfirmation of the cash credit limit by the Committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank on February 22, 1951, defendant No.
No appeal was filed against the aforesaid decree.
The first question was answered by the Full Bench in the negative.
In other words it came into existence after June 30, 1953 which was the date numberified by the Government as the last date for settlement of debts due by jagirdars by an application made under s. 11 of the Act.
By the Hyderabad Abolition of Jagirs Regulation passed on August 15, 1949 the jagirs were abolished.
2 as Karta and Manager of joint family business of defendant No.
On March 10, 1960 the learned judge passed an order transferring the execution petition to the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Board under S. 25 1 of the Act.
2 Karta, Head and Manager was drawing monies from time to time in the cash credit account of defendant No.
The Bank challenged the order of transfer before the High Court on the revisional side.
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and decrees dated February 8, 1963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
36,201 9 8 in the cash credit account of defendant, No.
In December 1959 the Bank filed an execution petition in the companyrt of the Fourth Additional Judge.
C. Chagla and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellants in As.
The Hyderabad State Bank had filed a suit in July 1956 against the joint family business known as Mukund Das Raja Bhagwandas Sons and the four sons of Raja Bhagwan Das who had died, the sons having been impleaded as defendants 2 to 5.
40,869 1 10 was due from defendants 1 to 5 as principal debtors and defendant No.
2 had companyfirmed the amount due under the cash credit account in his letter dated July 7, 1954.
On September 3, 1952 defendant No.
6 further executed a fresh letter of guarantee in favour of the Bank.
63 66 of 1959 dated February 1, 1963 in O.S. No.
6 also filed their written statements companytesting the claim but numberplea was ,raised on the basis of the provisions of the Act.
50,000 in favour of defendant No.
572 of 1960 and C.C.C. Appeals Nos.
2 in his above capacity requested the Bank to grant what is called a clean cash credit limit of Rs.
50,000.
In view of the fact that the 6th defendant did number raise any serious companytest to the claim it was directed that the plaintiff companyld proceed in the first instance against the joint family assets of defendants 2 to 5 and person of the second defendant .and if the entire sum was number realized then it companyld levy execution against the sixth defendant.
2 was allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs.
We shall dispose of Civil Appeal No.
The second question has also similarly answered and it was held that the executing companyrt was number companypetent to reopen the case by tracing the history of the transaction which resulted in the liability under the decree.
1 and as companylateral security for the same defendant No.
1140 of 1966 .
1 executed a fresh pronote for the reduced limit of Rs.
Whether in execution proceedings relating to decrees obtained in suits filed after the numberified date, the Court companyld go behind the decrees passed and trace the history of the transactions which resulted in the liability under the decree ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. These appeals arise out of two different litiga tions although some of the parties are the same.
Defendants 3 to 5 and defendant No.
35,000 which was endorsed in favour of the Bank.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
99,500 by three cheques from February 8, 1951 to February 12, 1951.
2 filed a written statement taking up various pleas companytesting the claim of the Bank but numberobjection was raised on the basis of the provisions of the Hyderabad Jagirdar Settlement Act 1952 which was published in the Official Gazette on March 18, 1952, hereinafter ,called the Act.
6 as guarantor together with interest.
Defendant No.
1 and credited to the personal account of defendant No.
It was averred that defendant No.
6 also executed a fresh letter of guarantee.
1140 of 1966 .
As many as 10 issues were framed by the learned Fourth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Defendant No.
1,00,000.
1138 of 1966 and the respondents in C.As.
37 of 1958, So far as the appeal against the Bank is companycerned there is numbermerit in it because it has been proved and that finding companyld number be successfully assailed before us that the debt in question was a post numberification debt.
2 executed a fresh pronote in favour of defendant No.
113 to 1140 of 1966.
Defendant No.
CI/71 reduced subsequently to Rs.
On account of this cash credit account a sum of Rs.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt personally against the 2nd and the 6th defendant and against joint family assets of defendants 2 to 5.
Future interest was awarded at the rate of 5 1/2 per annum.
The learned single judge, who heard the revision petition, referred three questions of law for companysideration by a larger bench.
1138 of 1966 respondent No.
On December 28, 1953 there was a balance of Rs.
1,00,000 against the guarantee of defendant No.
2 executed a promote in favour of defendant No.
6 which was endorsed by him in favour of the Bank.
1 the guarantor for Rs.
6 for the sanctioned limit of Rs.
Civil Appeal No.
The drawing limit was, L235Sup.
70,000.
1138 of 1966 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated February 8, 1963 in a revision petition.
1 in C.A. No.
V. Subramanyam and A. V. Rangam, for the respondent in A. No.
The other two cross appeals i.e. 1139 of 1966 and 1140 of 1966 arise out of the judgment dated February 1, 1963 passed by the same High Court in a suit which had been filed by the State Bank of Hyderabad on the basis of a promissory numbere dated November 27, 1953 for recovery of Rs.
63 and 66 of 1969.
1138 of 1966 first.
1 L 139 of 1966 and the appellant in C.A. No.
On February 2, 1951 defendant No.
There was a sixth defendant also Srikishen Sookhdev Malani.
