NAWAB SYED MAHMOOD ALI KHAN Vs. CHATURGIRJI CHELA OF RAJA BHONESHGIRJI
LAWS(APH)-1963-9-10
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 10,1963

NAWAB SYED MAHMOOD ALI KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
CHATURGIRJI CHELA OF RAJA BHONESHGIRJI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jaganmohan Reddy, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from the Award passed by the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board in which the six appellants filed Form No. 1. Chaturgirji, Respondent No. 1, is a creditor and he having died, his legal representatives have been brought on record. A notice was issued to Chaturgirji, but he preferred to to file Form No. 1 on 23th June, 1953, within the date specified in the notification issued under section 11 of the Hyderabad Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act (XII of 1952) which expired on 3Oth June, 1953. He also filed Form No. III on 29th June, 1953. Respondent No. 2, Ramjee Totaram, died and his legal representatives have also been brought on record. The legal representatives of respondent No. 2, Murarilal and four others, were also creditors and they filed Form No. III within the time and also Form No. 1. Respondent No. 3, Mohammadi Begum, was not alive on the date of the appeal ; and in fact, the appeal must be deemed to have been preferred against her legal representatives. She was a decree-holder against the appellants in respect of the matruka property of one Nawab Shamsheer Jung. A suit was filed by her against the heirs of Nawab Shamsheer Jung and during the pendency of appeal against the decree passed in that suit, she as well as the other heirs against whom she had filed the suit died, and the appellants have been brought on record as their legal representatives.
(2.) The appellants' case against respondent No. 1 is that, he did not file Form No. III within the time given in the notice, and consequently his debt is extinguished under section 22 of the Hyderabad Jagirdas Debt Settlement Act (XII of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the Act. This contention, in our view, has no merits because section 22 contemplates non-fulfilment of the requirements of section n by making an application under section 11 within the period specified in that section, or in respect of which no application for recording a settlement is made under section 15, within the period specified in the said section 15, or in respect of which an application made to the Board is withdrawn under section 19 and no fresh application is made under section 11, and every debt due from any such debtor in respect of which a statement is not submitted to the Board by the creditor in compliance with the provisions of section 21 is said to be extinguished. When the creditor is given a right under section 11 to file Form No. i within a particular period and he has done so, then, notwithstanding the fact that he has not filed Form No. III in compliance with the notice given under section 21 of the Act, his claim cannot be said to be extinguished. Section 20 of the Act enjoins that : "Where two or more applications for settlement of debts under section 11 are presented by or against the same debtor, all such applications shall be consolidated. Where such separate applications are presented against joint debtors all such applications shall be heard together." This provision makes it clear that the creditors have a right to file Form No. 1 under section 11 within the time specified therein, and when there are several such forms or applications against the same debtors, they will be consolidated and heard together.
(3.) In construing sections 21 and 22, it must be taken that only where forms are not filed within the time specified in section 11 then the inhibition contained in section 22 will come into operation. If a notice was given to the creditor to file a statement within a certain period which falls outside the period prescribed for filing Form No. i and he has not filed it within that time, then section 22 will come into operation and not otherwise where a creditor has already filed an independent form in exercise of the right conferred on him under section 11. In our view, the Board is right in rejecting the contention of the appellants.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.