The suit was, therefore, decreed against the appellants and the second respondent, against which an original side appeal was filed in the High Court.
were pending on the date.
V. Gupte, A. V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for respondent No.
R. Somnath Iyer, R. K. P. Shankardass, R. V. Ramarao and P. K. Pillai, for the appellants.
P 10 in favour of the Bank that from the fresh cash credit account which was opened on 8 8 1953 in the name of the appellant firm with the Bank, the appellants cleared the earlier liabilities under the three accounts mentioned above which were closed and that on the same date the Bank returned to the appellants thirteen bills duly endorsed in favour of the appellant firm.
The trial companyrt on the evidence held that the amounts due from the appellants on the three old accounts were Rs.
2,05,358 8 8 on Overdraft Account Clean Ledger No.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 14, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Original Side Appeal.
1 held that under section 25 1 of the Act, all suits appeals, applications for execution and proceedings other than revisions, taken before the Courts in regard to debts for which applications under section 11 of that Act companyld be made to the Board and involve the questions, as to the status of the Debtor and the total extent of his debts, are liable to be transferred if they 1 1963 II Andhra Weekly Reporter, 147.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal is by certificate against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which companyfirmed the judgment and decree of a single Judge of the Original Side of that Court.
9 of 1959.
2,59,436 0 0 on the L.B.D. Account b Rs.
2 Dwarkadas Mukundas.
It further held that at the request of the appellants they were granted by the first respondent a cash credit to the extent of Rs.
5,00,000/ advanced to them by the Bank on a cash credit account secured by the aforesaid mortgage deed.
The first respondent Bank filed a suit against the appellants defendants Nos.
5,00,000/and in companypliance with the terms of sanction the appellants executed a mortgage deed Ex.
1 4 who are members of the joint family firm, for the recovery of a sum of I.G. Rs.
What is meant by the expression pending in section 25 1 was interpreted as pending on the numberified date.
35,205 7 4 on Overdraft Account Clean Ledger No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
547 of 1967.
As a further security, the first defendant on behalf of the joint family, caused the 5th defendant respondent 2 to guarantee the amount borrowed from the Bank and accordingly he executed a promissory numbere in favour of the 5th defendant on 26 9 1953 for Rs.
Ultimately these accounts were closed by payment from the amount of Rs.
As the defendants failed to pay the amounts which fell due under the terms of the mortgage, a suit was filed as aforesaid against all the defendants.
The 5th defendant also executed a separate guarantee in favour of the said Bank on the same date.
It was companytended that as the amounts due on the three earlier accounts to the Bank were debts which were pending on the date of the Act and since these loans were secured by the mortgage, the provisions of the Act are applicable and the debts got extinguished as the Bank had number applied under section 11 before 30 6 1953 to refer them for settlement by the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board.
By the time the appeal came up for hearing, a Full Bench of the Hyderabad High Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Mukundas Raja Bhgawandas and Sons and Ors.
5,00,000/ which he in turn endorsed in favour of the Bank.
The 1st defendant who was the manager and Karta of the joint family remained ex parte.
14 Dwarkadas Mukandas c Rs.
Defendants 2 4 alone filed written statements resisting.
the suit on several pleas, two of which alone may be numbericed for the purposes of this appeal, namely, i that the suit debts were extinguished under section 22 of the Hyderabad Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act 1952 hereinafter called the Act , inasmuch as numberapplication was presented by the Bank under section 11 of the Act before 30th June 1953 which was the numberified 1 5 9 date and ii the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to try the suit as under section 25 of the Act all suits and proceedings for the recovery of a debt due from a Jagirdar have to be transferred to the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board which alone had jurisdiction to settle it.
5,00,000/ on the basis of a mortgage deed executed by them in favour of the Bank by securing certain immovable properties without possession.
The 5th defendant though he appeared in the Court, did number file any written statement and chose to remain exparte throughout.
5,00,000/ made up of a Rs.
