A.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a decree-holders' appeal. The circumstances in which it has arisen are these: Sahu Jagarnath had three sons - Sahu Ram Prasad, Sahu Chandi Prasad and Sahu Ram Swarup. Sahu Chandi Pd. died heirless. Smt. Basanti Devi is the widow of Sahu Ram Swarup. Ram Krishna is the son of Sahu Ram Pd. Sarvasri Niranjan Prakash, Ram Prakash, Hari Prakash, Prem Prakash and Jai Prakash are all sons of Sahu Ram Krishna. On an application being made by Ram Krishna and his minor sons under Section 10 of the Court of Wards Act, the Court of Wards took charge of their estate. The Court of Wards was also incharge of another estate belonging to Shri Sheo Shankar Lal, Shri Hari Shankar Lal, Shri Kundan Lal, Shri Anant Lal, Shri Suresh Chandra, Shri Naresh Chandra, Shri Ramesh Chandra and Shri Mahesh Chandra. This latter estate was in need of money. The Court of Wards acting on behalf of the former estate advanced money to the latter estate on the basis of a simple mortgage bond executed on the 8th of January, 1938. The amount advanced was Rs. 40,500. Subsequently Smt. Basanti Devi claimed the property which can be referred to as belonging to the estate of Sahu Ram Krishna and his sons on the ground that the property really belonged to her husband Sahu Ram Swarup and she had inherited it from him. A suit No. 7 of 1938 for possession over the properties of that estate was filed by Smt. Basanti Devi against Ram Krishna and his sons as well as the Court of Wards. That suit ended in a compromise. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, daughter of Smt. Basanti Devi also joined that compromise. By that corn promise, a part of the estate which had been taken over by the Court of Wards as the estate of Ram Krishna and his sons was held to belong to Smt. Basanti Devi and her daughter and they got possession over some properties of that estate including the mortgage bond dated the 8th of January, 1938. On the basis of that mortgage bond, therefore, Smt. Basanti Devi and her daughter Smt. Rajeshwari Devi filed suit No. 4 of 1950 for recovery of Rs. 27,739-6-0 by the sale of the mortgage property. The suit was filed against the Collector of Banda as manager, Court of Wards in charge of the estate of the mortgagors Sheo Shankar and others. The suit resulted in a decree. Subsequently the estate of the mortgagors was released by the Court of Wards. The property mortgaged which was sought to be sold in satisfaction of the mortgage debt was zamindari property. Zamindari having been abolished, the two decree-holders sought to proceed in the execution against the compensation amounts that became payable to the mortgagors as a result of the abolition of the zamindari. The mortgagors then put in an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. and claimed the benefit of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act. Two objections were filed. One was on behalf of the two mortgagors Hari Shankar and Mukandi Lal and the other was on behalf of Sheo Shankar and others. The objection of Sheo Shankar and others raised other points also. But so far as the question of reduction of the debt under the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act was concerned, it had been raised in both the objections by the judgment-debtors. This point in the two objections was considered by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge in a single order dated the 30th of August, 1954. That order was to govern the objection of Sahu Sheo Shankar Lal and others also. No appeal appears to have been filed against the order in the objection of Sheo Shankar Lal and others. But the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the decree holders against the order in the objection of Hari Shankar Lal and Mukandi Lal. In the objection raised by the judgment-debtors, they claimed apportionment of their liability under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act and also claimed reduction of the amount of the debt. The latter request was opposed on behalf of the decree-holders on the ground that the debt in question was not a debt as defined in the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act and the provisions of that Act were, therefore, not applicable to it.
(2.) The learned Civil and Sessions Judge found that the necessary materials for apportionment had not been placed before him. He, therefore, postponed the question of apportionment for the time being. He, however, directed a reduction of the amount of the debt and rejected the petition of the decree-holders that the debt was not reduceable under the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. Two contentions have been pressed on behalf of the decree-holders in support of the present appeal. The first is that the learned Civil and Sessions Judge was not justified in directing reduction without apportioning the liability. The second is that he was incorrect in his view that the debt in question was a 'debt' within the definition of the term as given in the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. On behalf of the respondents a preliminary objection was raised that as no appeal had been filed against the order allowing the objection of the other judgment-debtors Sheo Shankar Lal and others, the present appeal was incompetent.
(3.) The preliminary objection must, in our opinion, be overruled. The two objections were dealt with by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge by the same judgment and were disposed of by a single order. The fact that an appeal has not been filed in one of the two cases heard together cannot, therefore, affect the maintainability of the appeal in the other case. See Narhari v. Shankar, A.I.R. 1953 SC 419.;