MOHAN LAL Vs. GOKARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Special Appeal against the decision of a learned single Judge. The facts of the case are that Bhola Singh and his son Hakim Singh had mortgaged certain properties to Mohan Lal and others in the year 1926. On 1-2-1932, Bhola Singh sold his half share in one of the villages to Subedar Singh. A suit, No. 35 of 1932, was filed by Mohan Lal and others against the mortgagors but Subedar Singh was not impleaded. The preliminary decree was passed on 21-4-1932, and the final decree on 4-3-1933. In the year 1936 Bhola Singh and Hakim Singh applied under the Encumbered Estates Act. Mohan Lal and others claimed that they were creditors and they proved their debt. On 11-3-1939 a decree under Section 14 of the Encumbered estates Act was passed in their favour against the landlord applicants. In the year 1940 Subedar singh sold the 8 Biswansi share purchased by him in 1932 to Gokaran Singh. This share had been included, by Bhola Singh and Hakim Singh in the list of properties belonging to them. Gokaran Singh filed an objection under Section 11 of the Encumbered estates Act in the year 1944. His objection was allowed and the 8 Biswansi share was excluded from the list of properties belonging to the landlord-applicants. Mohan Lal and others then filed an application under Section 9 (5) (a) of the Encumbered Estates Act for apportionment of the debt on the ground that Gokaran Singh, being in possession of a part of the mortgaged property, was liable to pay a portion of the debt and the debt should, therefore, be apportioned between the landlord-applicant and Gokaran Singh. The trial court granted the application and held that gokaran Singh was liable to pay Rs. 741/ -. Gokaran Singh filed an appeal and the learned district Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court on the ground that gokaran Singh was not a joint debtor. On a further appeal to this Court the learned Judge affirmed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the appeal but for different reasons.

(2.) THE learned Judge, however, gave leave to file a special appeal and this appeal has been filed against his decision. The appeal was rightly dismissed by the learned single Judge though in our view the appeal should have been dismissed for reasons other than those given by the learned single Judge. The learned Judge was of the opinion that a debtor under the Encumbered Estates act was a person who was personally liable for the payment of a debt and the apportionment of a debt could, therefore, be made only between co-debtors personally, liable for payment. The learned Judge relied on the first part of Section 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act in support of the proposition. Relevant portion of Section 4 is as follows :

(3.) WE do not think that this reasoning was, with great respect to the 'learned Judge, sound. All that the Section means is that the landlord should be liable for secured or unsecured debts before he can apply under the Encumbered Estates Act. Even a debtor who is not personally liable but whose property is liable to be taken in satisfaction of his debts can apply under the Encumbered estates Act. The word 'debtor' has not been denned but 'debt' includes (see Section 2 (a), encumbered Estates Act) "any pecuniary liability except a liability for unliquidated damages. " A debtor, therefore, is a person who has any pecuniary liability; it does not mean that the pecuniary liability must be personal liability and will not include a liability recoverable only from his property. We, therefore, do not agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge but there are other reasons why this appeal must fail.