DAHYALAL JETHALAL Vs. PATEL MANILAL JIWANBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-1960-7-14
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 28,1960

DAHYALAL JETHALAL Appellant
VERSUS
PATEL MANILAL JIWANBHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.B.MEHTA - (1.)This is a second appeal from the appellate judgment of the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad who in turn confirmed the order and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Modasa. The appellant here is original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. The plaintiffs suit was on a Khata for an amount of Rs. 1 200 inclusive of interest. There were two substantial defenses. One was that the debt was extinguished under the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and the second was that the Khata was taken by undue influence. On the point of undue influence the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that there was no undue influence but on the point whether the debt was extinguished under the B. A. D. R. Act the learned Trial Judge held that the debt in question was so extinguished. On appeal the learned Assistant Judge confirmed the order of the Trial Judge also coming to the conclusion that the debt was extinguished under the B. A. D. R. Act.
(2.)In this Court Mr. Shastri the learned Advocate for the appellant has taken up the only point that the debt in question is not extinguished under the provisions of the B. A. D. R. Act. Now for the purpose of this appeal it is necessary to state that it is an admitted fact that the defendant-respondent is a debtor under the B. A. D. R. Act and his debts did not exceed Rs. 15 0 The debtor is a resident of the village of Antiadeva part of Modasa Taluka in the former British India and the plaintiff creditor is a resident of the village Bayad a part of the former Idar State. The Khata in question on which the suit is based is dated 6/10/1950. To appreciate the point raised in this appeal viz. that the debt is extinguished under the provisions of the B. A. D. R Act it is necessary to refer to the legislation on this point. The Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 by its sub-section (1) of sec. 4 provides as follows:-
"Any debtor ordinarily residing in any local area for which a Board was established under sec. 4 of the repealed Act on or after the 1/02/1947 or his creditor may make an application before the 1/08/1947 to the Court for the adjustment of his debts."

(3.)Under the Act which was repealed Boards were set up for adjustment of debts and under this Act i. e. the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 an application by the debtor or the creditor as the case may be under sec. 4 has to be made to a Court before 1/08/1947. On this provisions there is no controversy. Now in this context it is necessary to refer to sec. 15 of the Act which provides as follows:-
"Every debt due from a debtor in respect of which no application has been made under sec. 4 within the period specified in the said sec. 4 or in respect of which no application for recording a settlement is made under section 8 within the period specified in the said sec. 8 or in respect of which an application made to the Court is withdrawn under sec. 12 and no fresh application is made under sec. 4 and every debt due from such debtor in respect of which a statement is not submitted to the Court by the creditor in compliance with the provisions of sec. 14 shall be extinguished."

;


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