KASHI PRASAD Vs. PADAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the decree-holder has arisen in the following circumstances

(2.) In 1943 Raja Sir Daljit Slngh, the father and grand-father of the respondents 1 and 2 respectively entered into an agreement with the appellant, Pt. Kashi Prasad, for sale of certain villages to him. The Raja did not fulfil his agreement, whereupon Pt. Kashi Prasad filed a suit in 1944 for damages to the extent of Rs. 43,251/13/4 only. This amount included the earnest money which had been paid by Pt. Kashi Prasad to the Raja. On 1-6-1945, the suit was decreed for Rs. 25,000/- only. On 5-1-1948, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by sale of the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtors in three villages Andhi, Bechiya Abadi and Balipur. The judgment-debtors objected that the decree could not be executed in view of Section 7, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. It appears that Raja Daljit Singh applied on 16-10-1935, for relief under the provisions of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. The properties including the villages in dispute were gazetted on 23-1-1937 under Section 11 of the Act. The final award (Ext. 1) was passed by the Collector on 15-3-1947. Three main issues were framed by the Execution Court. It was held that the property in suit was shown in the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act and the provisions of the Act were applicable to it. It was also held that the decree-holder obtained the decree on the basis of a private debt against the Judgment-debtors, but he could not proceed against the said property of the judgment-debtors in view of Section 7, Sub-sections (2) and (3). The result of the findings was that the villages in question could not be attached and sold in execution of the decree. Against this order the present appeal has been filed by the decree-holder.

(3.) The points which were decided against the decree-holder by the Court below have been reiterated before us. As regards the first contention that the decree is not a debt within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-s. (a) of the Encumbered Estates Act, it would be sufficient to say that the present decree clearly comes within the definition of the word "debt". Debt, according to Section 2 (a), includes any pecuniary liability except a liability for unliquidated damages. It is true that the claim originally put forward by the decree-holder wss one which might be called a claim for unliquidated damages, for he not only asked for the refund of the earnest money advanced by him but also claimed damages occasioned by the breach of the agreement. The decree, however, was for Rs. 25.000/- only which is an ascertained sum. The decree is undoubtedly a pecuniary liability and excludes the liability for unliquidated damages. We hold, therefore, in agreement with the view of the Court below that the decree is a debt within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act.