On point Nos.
The predecessors of the respondents borrowed money from the predecessor of the appellants and as a security, executed two mortgage deeds dated 12.3.1927 and 15.3.1931 mortgaging landed property companysisting of zamindari property situated within the limits of Unnao Municipality as well as the property outside those limits besides Sir, khudkast, Groves and houses in favour of Manni Lal Shah, predecessor of the appellants.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the special judge on remand, the appellants preferred revision petitions in the High Court.
26,9007 and share in unprotected properties.
1207 1958 before the High Court against the said judgment of the special judge.
The applications were listed before the special judge who framed eight issues.
1 companyld be decided by this Court after the order of remand passed by the Honble High Court?
The first decree was for Rs.
The respondents moved an application under Section 19 A of the Encumbered Act in the companyrt of special judge, first class, Unnao on 28.1.1956 which was numbered as EE case No.
1 only.
Predecessor of the respondents made an application on 20.10.1936 under Section 4 of the said Act and the decision on the liabilities between the parties was entrusted to the special judge appointed under the said Act.
1, 2 3 in the remand order.
The companylector dealt with the decrees under Section 28 of the said Act and gave an award on 24.4.1942 under Section 31 of the Act whereby Manni Lal Shah, predecessor in interest of the appellants got encumbered estate bonds of the value of Rs.
In the year 1934, the state Legislature of the then United provinces enacted U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to provide a speedy remedy to liquidate the debts of the then zamindars and to ensure that repayment is made to the creditors at the reduced amount.
It was held that the application was number maintainable under the Reduction Act as the decrees in favour of the appellants were simple money decrees, number charged on immovable property.
The special judge recorded findings on issue No.
This affidavit has been companyntered by the respondents by filing an affidavit of one of the parties stating therein that these points were number argued before the special judge.
Whether the decree should be deemed to have been satisfied after the preparation of the final liquidation award by companylector and if so, is this application number maintainable for reduction of the debt?
The special judge, on 29.6.1939, passed two decrees in favour of the predecessor of the appellants.
The respondents preferred C.R. No.
The special judge before whom the case was posted after the remand by the High Court framed the following five points for determination.
1/1956.
No finding was recorded on issue No.
The order impugned in the revision petition was set aside and the case was remitted to the special judge for disposal in accordance with law after giving the benefits of the amending provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Debt Reduction Amending Act, 1962 to the applicants therein.
The same was allowed by the High Court.
Whether the decrees that were passed under Section 14 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act merged in the award under Section 31 read with section 33 of the Act and there were numbersubsisting decrees required to be amended?
During the pendency of the revision petition before the High Court, the U.P. Zamindari Debt Reduction Amendment Act, 1962 U.P Act No.
21,595/ with interest 4 p.a.
The High Court on a companycession made by the parties, in view of the amendment of Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Debt Reduction Amendment Act, 1962 deleting the words charged on the property from Section 4 held that the view taken by the special judge stood displayed and the respondents were to be given advantage of Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Amendment Act, 1962.
The appellants are the creditor decree holders and the respondents are the judgment debtors.
1,76,747.05 with interest 4 p.a.
U.P. Zamindari Debt Reduction Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Reduction Act came into force.
If the decrees subsist, what was the reduced amount in respect of such decree?
The two issues which were tried as preliminary issues are as follows Whether the debt sought to be reduced is secured debt within the meaning of Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Debt Reduction Act, 1952 Act XV of 1953 or it ceased to be secured debt after passing the decree in the Encumbered Estates case by the special judge?
The second decree was for Rs.
The said decrees were transferred to the companylector, Unnao for execution.
XX of 1962 was passed.
The appellants have filed an affidavit of the lawyer who had appeared before the learned single judge stating therein that he had argued the second point in the first order of the special judge which were companyverted to point Nos.
XIII of 1954 to give effect to the provisions of the Reduction Act.
1 3, the special judge did number record any specific finding.
