MALIK SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN Vs. SYED MOINUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by one of the creditors against the Award passed by the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board. The appellant, one Malik Sher Muhammad Khan, filed his claim in Form No. 3 in answer to notice under section 21 of the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act (XII of 1952). The debtor filed a petition giving a list of the creditors and praying for settlement of his debts by the Board appointed under the said Act. The creditors shown in the petition by the respondent-debtor as well as the amounts shown as due to them are as follows :- <FRM>1.htm</FRM> The total debt amounts to I.G. Rs. 24,817-7-0. There is no dispute with regard to this figure. The only question that has been raised by the appellant is that the Jagir Debt Settlement Board has erred not only in computing the paying capacity of the debtor, contrary to the provisions of the Act, but also in scaling down the debt in a manner which is not warranted by the provisions of the said Act. The debtor is not represented before us, nor is he present in person, nor have the other creditors appealed except Malik Sher Muhammad Khan, whose debt is I.G. Rs. 8,400. It may be mentioned that two of the members of the Tribunal have computed the paying capacity contrary to the statement given by the debtor himself, while the third member, Mr. Loya, has accepted the statement of the debtor as to the value of his house property and the quarterly commutation amount which he receives. Further, both the majority and the minority have taken his pension from Maxam Jamiat into account in determining the value of the property and other assets of the debtor, and his paying capacity.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the appellant challenges the order on the ground that when the debtor himself has stated that he is receiving a sum of Rs. 675 as quarterly jagir commutation, it was not open to the Board to have acted on the information of the Jagir Administrator's Office that he receives Rs. 489-0-3, which amount, according to the learned Advocate, was only an interim allowance paid to all the Jagirdars towards the quarterly commutation payable to each one of them under the Jagir Abolition Act. It is true that under the Act, interim allowances were payable. But, those allowances which were paid were to be adjusted towards the final determination of the amount fixed as the quarterly instalment. At any rate, when the debtor himself on oath states that he receives a sum of Rs. 675 quarterly, there is no justification, in our view, for the Board not accepting that statement and not acting thereon.

(3.) If Rs. 675 is taken as the quarterly commutation, its annual capitalization over a period often years would amount to Rs. 27,000. In respect of the value of the house property which is owned by the debtor, he has, in his statement, stated that it is Rs. 4,600 (O.S.). That has been reduced by the majority of the Board to O.S. Rs. i,600 on the ground that from the Farde Vasool Baqi in File No. 216, dated 3rd November, 1951, it appeared that when the property was re-auctioned by the Court in 1359-F. (corresponding to the year 1950), it fetched only O.S. Rs. 1,600. In fact, it was not sold at the auction because of the low price. When the property has not been sold for that price, it cannot be said that its value was only Rs. 1,600 When the debtor himself has valued his property at Rs. 4,600, there seems to be no justification for the Board to reduce it further. If the figure given by the debtor is taken it will come to I.G. Rs. 3,900 which the third member, who dissented, has adopted. In our view, therefore, the paying capacity of the debtor in respect of the commutation and the house property would amount to Rs. 30,900.