A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi dated 10-2-1983.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant-respondents for the recovery of Rs. 8,429. 70 on the basis of mortgage deed dated 21-9-1963 by which a sum of Rs. 8,000/- were advanced. THE respondents contested the suit during the trial. However, a preliminary decree was passed on 18-9-1972 and later on a final decree was also passed on 1-10-1973. One of the defendants, namely, Wall Mohammed, filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indab-tedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for determination of his debt. After hearing both the parties, the debt relief court determined the debt of Wali Mohd. to the tune of Rs. 3,288. 70. A scheme of repayment by instalments was also drawn. THE judgment debtor deposited the entire amount in the debt relief court. THE petitioner-plaintiffs filed an execution application for execution of the decree passed in the suit and prayed that the decree may be executed against the remaining three judgment-debtors. An application was filed by the judgment-debtors that claim of the decree holder was determined by the debt relief court and the same has been paid. THErefore, the decree passed by the Civil Court is in-executable. THE application of the judgment debtors was accepted. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the appellate court also held that once the debt relief court has scaled down the debt, which was passed in the previous decree the whole decree stood discharged in view of the judgment of the debt relief court and therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by filing the present revision petition. Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the debt relief court has no jurisdiction to reduce the decree passed by a regular civil court. He has also submitted that the debt of agriculturist Wali Mohd. has been scaled down. Therefore, the remaining debt against the three judgment-debtors can be recovered. As against this Mr. Singhi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the contentions of Mr. Lodha are not correct in view of a full bench decision of this Court as well as the views expressed by other High Courts. Learned counsel submitted that the debt relief court has the jurisdiction to scale down the loan of the agriculturists and there is no bar that the civil decree cannot be scaled down. He also submitted that since one individual decree has been passed, it cannot be splitted up to the extent of the share of the agriculturist. As such the debt relief court has rightly scaled down the debt of one individual judgment-debtor. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. So far as the first contention of Mr. Lodha that the debt relief court cannot scale down the debt is not correct. There is no prohibition contained in the Act that the decree passed by the civil court cannot be scale down. ' Under the Act, it has clearly been laid down that any debt can be scaled down, under the Act. The 'expression 'debt' has been defined in section 2 (c), which reads as under : - " (c) 'debt' includes all liabilities owing to a creditor, in cash or kind secured or unsecured payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise, whether due or not due, but shall not include land revenue or anything recoverable as land revenue other than liabilities payable under a decree of a village panchayat or any money for the recovery of which a suit is barred by limitation. " A bare perusal of the definition clearly shows that the debt arising out of a decree passed by the civil court can also be scaled down by the debt relief court. This has also been laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Gullaram vs. Govindram (1) as under: - "the scheme of section 10 is, to provide relief to the agriculturist both in. the principal loan and the interest by scaling down the principal amount of the loan and the interest. Even in those cases where a decree or order has been passed by a Civil Court, the principal and interest have got ' to be reduced by the Debt Relief Court while determining the debts under this section. The view that the Debt Relief Court has jurisdiction to go behind the decree is not open to challenge, though, at the same time, the jurisdiction conferred upon the Debt Relief Court under this section is of a limited nature and it can disturb the decree or order of a civil court only to the extent permitted therein. " Thus, the contention of Mr. Lodha does not survive.
(3.) THE next question which arises for consideration is that where one decree has been passed against more than one persons out of them one is agriculturist then such decree can be divided or not. Since in the present case the decree passed is a joint and several decree, all persons are jointly and severally liable for the satisfaction of the decree. THEre is no provision in the Act to split up the decree. This question was seriously debated in Akella China Venkatavamdhamulu vs. Muthangi Bachi Ramayya Garu (2; before full bench on reference. But in view of the judgment given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramaswami Iyengar vs. Kailasa THEvar (3) the reference was accordingly answered. In Ramaswami Iyengar's case (3 ). their Lordships of the Supreme Court were confronted with the similar situation and it was observed as under : "a preliminary mtge, decree was passed against seven persons on the basis of a mtge, executed by deft. 1 on behalf of himself & other defts. On appln. by defts. 2 to 7, the decree was scaled down only against them while it remained intact as against deft. 1 who did not apply. The final decree passed accordingly directed defts 2 to 7 to pay into Ct. the amount of decree as scaled down on payment of which the pltf. was to bring into Ct. all documents in his possession & re-convey the property if so required. The decree expressly directed deft. 1 to pay the entire amount as originally decreed on payment of which only the redemption of the mortgaged property would be allowed. In execution of the decree defts. 2 to 7 deposited certain amounts in Ct. towards the decretal debt as scaled down. Deft. I subse-quently deposited the balance of the decretal amount as scaled down & applied for entering up full satisfaction of the decree & release of the entire mortgaged property in accordance with terms of the decree passed against defts. 2 to 7: Held, that the decree should not only have stated the amount payable by deft. & that by defts. 2 to 7 separately but should have expressly directed that on payment of the amount directed to be paid by defts: 2 to 7 their interest alone in the mtge. property would not be liable to be sold. The further direction should have been that in case they did not pay this amount the whole of the mortgaged property including their interest would be sold for the entirety of the mtge. debt for which deft. 1 was made liable - Held, further that the appln. by deft. 1 was not maintainable. The effect of the scaling down was that the mtge. debt & the security were split up & therefore deft. 1 could not contend that, the mtge. debt remained indivisible. " In this case one of the persons was an agriculturist and rest were not, therefore, their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the view that it can be splited. But this question again came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in Ambu Rama Mhatre vs. Bhau Halya Patil (4) and it distinguished this case that since there was a specific provision in the Madras Agricult-urists' Relief Act, 1938 that the decree can be splitted up and one of the debtors who is an agriculturist would certainly entitled to have his debts scaled down but the decree against the remaining debtors was kept intact. But there was no provision in the Bombay Debt Relief Act for spliting the decree therefore, the court declined to split the decree. ;