SHAM NARAIN RAI Vs. NAGESAR RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order passed by the Court below by which his objections were partly allowed and partly dismissed.

(2.) It appears that a simple money decree was passed against the appellant on 27-10-1930. An application for execution of this decree was made on 16-3-1933 and eventually it was struck off, after part satisfaction of the decree, on 30-8-1933. Later, the judgment-debtor appears to have made an application under Section 5, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (Act 37 of 1934) with the result that the decree was converted into one payable by four instalments. The first instalment was payable on 5-9-1937, the second on 5-9-1938, the third on 5-9-1939, and the fourth on 5-9-1940. It was provided that on default of payment of any two instalments, the whole amount due under the decree was to become payable. It appears that no instalments were paid till 16-12.1941 when the second application for execution was made. This second application for execution was transferred to the Collector for execution and eventually on 11-7-1942, after the grant of a self-liquidating mortgage of some property in part satisfaction of the decree, it was struct off. Later it appears, the judgment-debtor claimed a reduction of interest in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9, U. P. Debt Redemption Act (Act XIII [13] of 1940). This was allowed. On 7-11-1944, the third application for execution was made. In execution proceedings besides other properties, some agricultural produce of the judgment-debtor was attached. Against the attachment of the agricultural produce, the judgment-debtor filed objections. In the main, the objections centred round the bar of limitation pleaded by the judgment-debtor. It was pleaded that Section 15, Debt Redemption Act, read with Section 6, Agriculturists' Relief Act, made the application for execution barred by time.

(3.) The Court below, after considering the relevant provisions of law, came to the conclusion, that the execution application in regard to only the first instalment of the decree, which fell due on 5-9 1937, was barred, while the remaining amount due under the decree, under the remaining three instalments, was recoverable. Against this order, partly dismissing the objections, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court.