S. Gupta, for respondent No.
B. Agarwala, B. R. L. Iyengar, G. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
December 24, 1962.
On the passing of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro prietary Rights Estates Mahals, Alienated Lands Act, 1950, the appellants applied under s. 19 1 of the Act for the determination of their debts, specifying the amounts and particulars of all secured debts and claims together with the names of the creditors.
By another order of the same date the Claims Officer called upon Patni to file his statement of claim under S. 22 of the Act.
The Board of Revenue held on June 15, 1954 that the Claims Officer had numberjurisdiction to determine the character of the debt and only the Civil Court companyld decide this issue.
1 R. Prem and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondents Nos.
The ex proprietors the appellants here Objected to the statement on the ground that it was out of time, and asked that the claim be held discharged.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 1, 1965 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Misc.
The High Court summarily dismissed the petition by its first order dated September 21, 1964 against which Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The appellants next applied for a certificate which was refused by order dated February 1, 1965, impugned in the present appeal, and the question involved is whether the appellants were entitled to a certificate as of right under Art.
2 and 3.
Patni did number file the statement but instead preferred an appeal against the main order before the former Madhya Pradesh Board of Revenue.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. This is an appeal by special leave against an order dated February 1, 1965 of the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench in Miscellaneous Petition No.
Patni appealed to the High Court but out of caution filed his statement of claim before the Claims Officer on January 23, 1958.
2/57/62/63 and by an order of May 5, 1964 the order of the Claims Officer was set aside.
The order of the Claims Officer of November 19, 1951 was thus held to have revived but the claim companyld number be discharged as action under s. 22 1 had number been taken.
One such creditor, named by them, is Gendalal Motilal Patni who is the first respondent.
This certificate was asked by the appellants in respect of the order of the High Court dated September 21, 1964 in Special Civil Application No.
Patni next moved the Civil Court and the Civil Court decided that the debt in question was a secured debt for the application of the Abolition Act.
Patni appealed to the Commissioner, Nag pur Division, Nagpur Rev. Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
13 of 1965.
Both these orders summarily dismissed the respective petitions.
471 of 1964.
The objection was taken under s. 21.
13 of 1965 refusing a certificate under Art.
395 of 1965 has been filed.
He held that although the debt had merged in a decree it remained a secured debt nevertheless and that as the amount was recoverable on the date of vesting, the provisions of the Act were applicable to it.
950 of 1965.
Application No.
The Claims Officer overruled the objection of Patni by an order dated November 19, 1951.
The Commissioner pointed out that the decision of the Nagpur High Court earlier referred to was overruled in the subsequent case of the High Court reported in A.I.R. 1956 Nagpur 193 and the Claims Officer had jurisdiction to pronounce on the character of the debt.
The case was remanded to the Claims Officer for disposal according to law.
In reaching this companyclusion the Board followed a decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in Ramkrishna v. Board of Revenue 1 .
The Claims Officer accepted the objection and discharged the claim by an order dated A.T.R. 1954 Nag.
226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench on the ground that the Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal and that the Claims Officer had ordered the companytinuation of the proceedings and so the order of the Commissioner was wrong.
2,16,309.
Patni objected that this had ceased to be a secured debt or secured claim for the application of S. 17 a of the Abolition Act.
His debt was a mortgage debt originally but had resulted in a decree for Rs.
395 of 1965 has been filed but by an order of this Court dated July 30, 1965, it has been kept Pending sine die with liberty to bring it up for hearing after the disposal of the present appeal.
The appellants thereupon filed a petition under Arts.
Against the main order Special Leave Petition Civil No.
