Rai Sabib Sri Kishen Das and Bhagwant Singh both appealed to the Chief Court against this decision.
Against the decree of the special judge an appeal was filed in the Chief Court which companyfirmed that decree on 13th March, 1946.
3,58,914 8 9, and deducting from this amount the net profits realized during the period of his possession amounting to Rs.
By an order of His Majesty in Council passed on 20th January, 1944, the decision of the Chief Court dated 15th February, 1938, was reversed and the amended decree passed by the Civil Judge of Sitapur on 11th January, 1936, was restored.
Under the other Act, a landlord debtor whose property was encumbered companyld apply to the companyrt for the administration of his estate for liquidation of his debts.
On the 10th October, 1939, Raghuraj Singh applied for amendment of his application.
This application was strenuously resisted by the creditor and it was pleaded by him that even under the amended decree a sum of Rs.
Hari Kishen Das then revived his demand against the judgment debtor for the companypletion of the sale deeds but the judgment debtor did number pay any heed to his request with the result that on 26th May, 1934, he made an application for execution of the companypromise decree.
In view of the decision of the Privy Council, Bhagwant Singh appellant made an application for restoration of possession and for recovery of profit,, wrongfully realized by Hari Kishen Das and after his death by his adopted son Sri Kishen Das.
2,85,620 074 was due and directed that if this amount was number deposited in companyrt within two months, the application would stand dismissed.
The appeal of Sri Kishen Das was numbered as 103 of 1944.
70 of 1944.
Raghuraj Singh went up in revision to the Chief Court against this order companytending that the proceedings should number be deemed as fresh proceedings.
4,31,148 9 9 including interest and companyts had become due to the decreeholder on the date of the sale since three instalments which had till then fallen due had remained unpaid and the default clause had companye into operation and the sale in execution companyld number be set aside, as it has number caused any injury to the judgment debtor and had number in any way caused loss to him in the absence of proof that he had the money to pay the instalments.
This objection was companytested by the debtor.
To the execution of this decree a number of objections were raised by Raghuraj Singh.
101 of 1951 was an appeal from the Judgment and decree dated the 13th March, 1946, of the Chief Court of Avadh at Lucknow in First Civil Appeal No.
I. Bishan Singh for the appellant.
132 of 1943 arising out of the Judgment dated the 25th September, 1943, of the Court of Special Judge, 1st Grade, Sitapur in E. E. Act Suit No.
On his failure to companyply with this demand, the companyrt executed a deed of sale in his favour on 24th February, 1939, and in due companyrse delivered to him possession of the property companyered by the deed.
He held that the arrears up to December, 1943, came to Rs.
The appeal of Bhagwant Singh was numbered as 23 of 1945.
It gave the judgment debtor, an opportunity to satisfy the decree by instalments if he companymitted numberdefault and to save the property from being sold in satisfaction of it but in case the whole amount of the decree became due according to its terms or if any portion of it remained unpaid, it yet had to be satisfied in the same manner as the original companypromise decree.
Hari Kishen Das made a selection of eight villages, and deeds of sale and relinquishment in respect of them were duly prepared and executed on 4th July, 1933 Before they companyld be presented for registration, the parties received information that a numberification for assumption by the Court of Wards of the management of the talukdars estate had been issued and that it was likely to render the companyveyances ineffectual.
The proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act having been quashed by the Board of Revenue in August, 1938, the sale held in February, 1939, was unaffected by the bar imposed by section 7 of the Act.
The companypromise decree with the necessary adaptations and amendments became the amended decree and was enforceable as such.
Liberty was given to the appellant to apply to the companyrt of the civil judge, Sitapur, for such relief as he might be entitled to with reference to the recovery of possession of the property.
Raghuraj Singh was number slow in seeking the aid of these laws to reduce the amount of his indebtedess and to save his property.
The subordinate judge allowed the application for restitution companyditional on Bhagwant Singh paying within two months the accumulated sum that had fallen due to the decreeholder under the unpaid instalments up to the date of the order.
This appeal can be shortly disposed of.
Before the disposal of these objections the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act XXVII of 1934 and the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act XXV of 1934 came into operation.
3,88,300 2 6 to Rs.
3,76,790 4 3 exclusive of companyts and future interest and directed Raghuraj Singh to pay the money in twelve equal annual instalments payable in the month of December of each year, the first instalment being payable in December, 1936, and also provided that in the case of default in payment of three instalments, the whole amount then due would become immediately payable.
Thakur Raghuraj Singh died in the year 1941, leaving him surviving the present appellant as his successor in interest.
Against this order, Hari Kishen Das filed an application in revision to the Chief Court and was successful in having the amended decree set aside on 15th February, 1938.
The special judge by his decree dated 25th September, 1943, declared Rai Bahadur Hari Kishen Das to be the proprietor of all the eight villages included in the sale deed of 24th February, 1939.
101 of 1951 arises out of another decision of the Chief Court dated 13 th March, 1946, which companyfirmed the decree dated 26th September, 1943, of the special judge of Sitapur under the Encumbered Estates Act.
Appeals 102 and 103 of 1951 arise out of this decision.
Bhagwant Singh applied for extension of time but this application was summarily dismissed.
An appeal had been taken by him against the decision of the Chief Court dated 15th February, 1938, setting aside the amended decree to His Majesty in Council.
His grievance was that he wag entitled to restitution without any companydition.
101 , 102 and 103 of 1951.
73,294 8 5 and the companyts of appeal allowed by the Privy Council, a. sum of Rs.
on 13th August, 1938, the Board of Revenue quashed the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act initiated by Thakur Raghuraj Singh.
As numberorder for stay of execution proceedings was obtained by Raghuraj Singh from the Chief Court or the Privy Council, the civil judge to whom the exe cution proceedings had been transferred, on 13th February, 1939, ordered the judgment debtor to execute a sale deed and on his making a default the civil judge on 24th February, 1939, executed a sale deed on behalf of the judgment debtor in, favour of Rai Bahadur Hari Kishen Das.
Under the provisions of Act XXVII of 1934, the judgment debtor became entitled to the amendment, of the decree by reduction of interest, and for payment of the decretal sum in instalments.
101 of 1951 number before us is directed against that decree.
This application was allowed by the sub divisional officer who passed an order under section 6 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act on 18th October, 1939, and forwarded the amended application to the special judge, first grade, Sitapur.
The facts about this matter are these As already stated, on 28th October, 1936, Thakur Ragburaj Singh applied under section 4 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act XXV of 1934 for administration of his estate so as to liquidate his debts amounting to about 14 lakhs.
Appeal No.
He made applications under both the Acts.
The companyputation of the price of the sold lands was to be made in the manner laid down in clause 6 .
During the pendency of the decreeholders, appeal before the Chief Court the judgment debtor did number obtain any order staying the operation of the amended decree.
Having succeeded in his application in revision in the Chief Court, Hari Kishen Das revived the proceedings in execution of the companypromise decree and called upon Raghuraj Singh to execute a sale deed in respect of the selected villages in his favour.
In the proceedings companymenced under the Encumbered Estates Act on 29th October, 1936, Raghuraj Singh obtained an order under section 6 of the Act but this order was eventually quashed by the Board of Revenue on 13th August, 1938, and the debtors application under section 4 was dismissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil AppealS Nos.
His companytention was that the judgment debtor was number entitled to restitution at all.
On a numberification issued under section 11 of the Encumbered Estates Act, Hari Kishen Das filed objection on 14th August, 1942, under section 11 claiming that the villages sold to him were his property and were number liable to be attached and sold for the debts of Raghuraj Singh.
The U.P. Encumbered Estates Amendment Act XI of 1939 came into operation after this sale.
Civil Appeal No.
103 of 1944 and 23 of 1945 arising out of the Judgment dated the 16th November, 1944, of the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow, in Miscellaneous Case No.
He reserved to himself the right to get back the sold villages after five years and before the expiry of fifteen years on payment of the stipulated prices.
On 31st July, 1940, the special judge passed an order to the effect that the proceedings would start afresh.
C. Setalvad Nazimuddin Siddique, with him for the respondent.
It was provided in the companypromise that Raghtiraj Singh mould within a week sell to Hari Kishen Das at agreed prices some villages out of the mortgaged property selected by him and sufficient to satisfy the decree.
On the 11th January, 1936, the civil judge of Sitapur altered the decretal amount of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J, MAHAJAN J. Shortly stated, the factS giving rise to these three appeals are these On the 4th July, 1933, Rai Bahadtir Lala Hari Kishen Das obtained from the companyrt of The civil judge, Sitapur, a final companypromise decree in the sum Of Rs.
102 and 103 of 1951 were appeals from the Judgment and Decree dated the 13th March, 1946, of the Chief Court of Avadh at Lucknow in Execution of Decree Appeals Nos.
In the application under the Relief Act he prayed for the scaring down of the amount of the decree and for instalments.
In the application under section 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act he asked for liquidation ,of his debts by the civil judge.
The Chief Court allowed the decreeholders appeal 103 of 1944 with companyts and dismissed the judgment debtors appeal 23 of 1945 but without companyts, and dismissed the application of the judgment debtor for restitution on the 13th March, 1946.
January 21.
3,88,300 2 6 with pendente lite and future interests and companyts, on the foot of two simple mortgages executed in his favour in 1928 and 1931 by Thakur Raghuraj Singh.
Appeal No.
Civil Appeals Nos.
27/1 of 1938.
