LAXMIBAI AND OTHERS Vs. RAMRAO MHATARJI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises an interesting question regarding the construction of section 15(2) of the C.P. and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1939, to which I shall refer hereafter by its popular name, Debt Relief Act.

(2.) The question of interpretation of section 15(2) has arisen under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 are the sons of the original defendant No. 2 one Mhatarji who was allowed to be transposed as the plaintiff No. 5 at the appellate stage. This Mhatarji and his two brothers applied under section 6 of the Debt Relief Act for scaling down their debts. The Presiding Officer, Debt Relief Court, Buldana, framed a scheme in accordance with section 11(1) of the Debt Relief Act with respect to the debts of Mhatarji and his brothers, on 28th Aug. 1941. By this scheme, the debts of the creditor Shridhar Govind were ordered to be paid in 26 annual instalments and consequently the scheme was to remain in force for 26 years. At the foot of the scheme, certain fields including two of the suit fields, survey Nos. 213/3-B and 213/1-A, were mentioned among the property belonging to the judgment-debtor. However fields survey Nos. 213/4 and 213/2 which also were the subject-matter of the suit were not mentioned in that list of the debtors' property in the scheme. Field survey No. 213/4 was acquired by Mhatarji by inheritance from his aunt in the year 1944, that is about three years after the scheme was framed, but the date and the mode of acquisition of field survey No. 213/2 by Mhatarji are not disclosed. During the subsistence of this scheme, Mhatarji sold field survey No. 213/1-A to one Bhausingh on 2nd April 1947 for Rs. 400 and Bhausingh subsequently sold that field to the defendant-appellant Yedusingh on 3rd June 1952. Mhatarji sold field survey No. 213/3-B and a part of field survey No. 213/4 to the appellant Yedusingh for Rs. 2,000 on 18-12-1948. Similarly, Mhatarji sold field survey No. 213/2 and the remaining portion of field survey No. 213/4 to the appellant Yedusingh for Rs. 500 on 14-4-1951.

(3.) The four sons of Mhatarji filed the present suit against the appellant Yedusingh for possession of field survey Nos. 213/1-A, 213/3-B, 213/2 and 213/4, firstly on the ground that those sales were void as having been effected without permission from the Deputy Commissioner under section 15(2) of the Debt Relief Act and secondly, on the ground that the sales were without legal necessity. The appellant Yedusingh had denied that the fields were the property of the joint family of the plaintiffs and their father Mhatarji. According to him, these fields were the self-acquired property of Mhatarji and the sales were justified by legal necessity as per details stated by him. The scheme framed by the Debt Relief Court was not acted upon and was allowed to lapse and, therefore, the sales of these fields without the Deputy Commissioner's permission were not void.