HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THESE 14 connected second appeals arise out of 14 suits for recovery of money brought by 14 creditors against defendants 1 to 4, the four sons of Sensmal who was the owner of the joint family firm Shermal Sultanmal. All these suits were decreed by the trial Court, but were dismissed by the appellate Court.
(2.)THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are these. The joint family of the debtors became heavily indebted in the year 1951. It owed a sum of Rs. 1,19,000 to 56 unsecured creditors on 20-12-51. It entered into an agreement with them for the compounding of the debt owed to them. This agreement was described as a deed of composition and was stamped with Rs. 10 which was the duty payable under Article 22 Schedule I of the Stamp Act on a composition deed at the time of its execution. In this deed the four brothers who were members of the joint family were described as party No. 1 and the 56 creditors were described as party No. 2. All the 56 creditors were named in this deed and the debts outstanding in favour of each of them were specified separately.
(3.)PARTY No. 1 agreed to place at the disposal of party No. 2 six houses described in the deed. It was stipulated that party No. 1 would execute sale-deeds of the 6 houses in favour of the person nominated by 7 of the nominees of the creditors whose names were mentioned in the deed. It was further stipulated that the price of 6 houses would be taken to be Rs. 53,000 whether or not they were sold for that amount. These six -houses were actually sold for a sum of Rs. 48,000 to two persons named by the 7 representatives of the creditors and the amount was deposited with the firm Hastimal Meghraj. The debtors deposited a sum of Rs. 6,500 in cash with this firm. The amount of Rs. 54,500 so deposited was distributed pro rate amongst the creditors with the exception of one creditor chhoga-lal of Sheoganj (not appellant Chhogalal ).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.