PARMA RAI Vs. DHARAM DEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1,106 on foot of a simple mortgage-deed, dated 10-10-1945. The plaintiff-respondents had in the plaint given up the security and claimed to recover the amount from the defendants personally.

(2.) THE suit was resisted and one of the pleas raised in defence was that under the provisions of U. P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Act, the debt was liable to be scaled down. That plea found favour with the learned trial Court, but it has been repelled by the lower appellate Court. THE view of the Court below was that as the plaintiff respondent has given up the security and had not claimed a decree under Order 34 Rule 4 of C. P. C. the provisions of the U. P. Debt Reduction Act were not attracted. THE Court of appeal passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 826 with proportionate cost and pendente lite and future interest at 3% per annum. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) THE first question that arises for consideration is as to whether the present suit was one to which the aforesaid Reduction Act applied. According to Clause (c) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act, the suit to which this Act applies means any suit or proceeding relating to a debt whether secured or otherwise and there can be no doubt that the suit filed by the plaintiff was a suit to which the provisions of the aforesaid Reduction Act applied. THE next question that awaits consideration is as to whether the suit under consideration related to a secured debt. Secured debt according to Section 2 (m) means a debt secured by mortgage of an estate or an estate and other immoveable property. THE mortgage deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, it is not disputed, comprised estate and prima facie the suit related to a secured debt. It is significant that the words used by the legislature in Section 3 are "relating to a secured debt."