SURAJ KARAN Vs. KAZIM ALI MIRZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on behalf of Suraj Karan, one of the creditors, is directed against the orders of the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board, dated 16th October, 1954 and nth April, 1955, rejecting his claim as time-barred and refusing to reconsider it. The facts which give rise to this appeal are : On 11th February, 1952, Kazim Ali Mirza, respondent 1 herein, a jagirdar, filed Form I mentioning the names of six creditors, of whom Suraj Karan was not one. On 23rd February, 1953, he along with his wife Khairunnissa, respondent 2 herein, also a jagirdar, filed a second Form I which contained the name of one more creditor (who was not Suraj Karan). The usual general notifications under section 21 (b) of the Hyderabad Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were issued on the Form I, dated 11th February, 1952, but not on Form I, dated 23rd February, 1953. In pursuance to the notifications, Suraj Karan, the appellant herein, on 27th October, 1953, filed from III for the settlement of his debt amounting to Rs. 40,000 on the basis of a decree passed by the City Civil Court on 22nd October, 1953. This FormIII filed by Suraj Karan was rejected by the Board on 9th December, 1953, on the ground that it was time-barred. It appears that no action was taken by the creditor, Suraj Karan, against this rejection of Form III by the Board. Later on, two separate Forms No. II were filed by respondents i and 2 herein on 3rd September, 1954, for settlement of the debts relating to Suraj Karan, the creditor who had filed Form III earlier which was rejected. These forms were rejected by the Board by majority on 16th October, 1954, on the ground that once the claim of Suraj Karan had been held to be time-barred, the same could not be revived on the plea of compromise either under section 15 or 16 of the Act. The third member constituting the Board clid not agree with the majority view and held that Form II filed by the debtors being within 30 days from the date of the settlement, the question of extinction of the debt did not arise and that therefore, in his opinion, it was well within time and he ordered Form I to be a taken on record and proceeded further.

(2.) He passed a dissenting order dated 1st March, 1955. A subsequent application, challenging the previous orders of the Board on the ground that no notice under section 21 (b) on Form I on the joint names of the debtors was issued, was also rejected by the Board by an order dated nth April, 1955. This appeal is preferred by Suraj Karan, one of the creditors, against the orders, dated 16th October, 1954. and nth April, 1955, mentioned above.

(3.) Sri Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that under section 21 (a) and (b) of the Act, a notification was necessary and as the notification issued only relates to the debt of Kazim Ali Mirza and not to the joint debts of Kazim Ali Mirza and his wife, there was no question of any limitation at all. It is next contended that the majority view of the Board that once the claim of the creditor was held as time-barred, the same could not be re-opened on the ground of compromise in the shape of Form II was erroneous in law, because a petition under section 15, was independent of section 11 of the Act. Sri Shanker Rao, learned counsel for respondent 1, contended that the Board has rightly held that the claim of Suraj Karan, once rejected could not be revived on the basis of compromise. As regards the argument relating to Form II, the learned counsel contended that the Board was right in holding that no action could be taken on this petition when already the claim of the creditor has been declared as time-barred. Similar contentions were raised by Sri Vishnu Rao and Sri Shanker Rao Sarangpurkar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 respectively. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel, a reference to the relevant provisions of the Act is necessary, but, before discussing those provisions, we would like to state that in the appeal before us also, both the jagirdar-debtor-respondents (respondents 1 and 2), viz., Kazim. Ali Mirza and Khairunnissa Begum have filed petitions admitting the claim of the creditor, Suraj Karan, and requested this Court to allow their Appeals. Sri Sanker Rao and Sri Vishnu Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 herein, after ascertaining from their clients, admitted their having filed such petitions, but contended that it would not affect the fact that the claim of the creditor was time-barred. As the third respondent is contesting the claim of the appellant herein and the arguments of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is also that their accepting" the claim here would not amount to admitting it to be within time, we have to gointo this question and see whether it is really time-barred.