SRINIVASAN Vs. HAR PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Neither the respondent's Advocate nor the respondent is present, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent's Advocate wanted and has obtained orders to have this case posted before an Urdu-knowing Judge. The grounds upon which the lower Court has negatived the contention of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist is a curious one. The lower Court held that no prim facie case has been established to hold the petitioner to be an agriculturist. The learned Judge states that of the three sons of the deceased Karta, viz., Dhatrika Eranna, who are brought on record as his legal representatives, viz-, Srinivasa, Sitaram Balaji and Kashinath, one of the sons of Srinivasa is a B.D.O., and one of the sons of Kashinath, who also died, is employed in the Faigah, i.e., in other words as two of the grandsons of Dhatrika Eranna have been employed and so the family is not an agriculturist. The learned Judge seems to be under the impression that all the members of the joint family should be agriculturists for the purposes of the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. It should not be forgotten that the Karta of the joint family, viz., the grandfather, was undoubtedly an agriculturist, and the suit was against the Karta. It is only during the pendency of the suit that he died and his legal representatives were brought on record. There is nothing to warrant a conclusion either on the language of the Act or on authority that merely because one of them is employed, the whole joint family ceased to be an agriculturist. During the course of the adjourned date, when this judgment was being continued, Mr. Madhava Rao appeared on behalf of the respondent and brought to my notice that there is yet another point on which the judgment of the lower Court could be sustained viz., that the petitioners had admitted that the debt due is more than Rs. 15,000 and for the purpose of obtaining benefit under the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, the debt should not be above Rs. 15,000. In fact under section 19 the civil Court is precluded from entertaining a suit where the debt is less than Rs. 15,000 and for that purpose issues have to be framed. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act are as follows :

(2.) Section 18. (1) On the date fixed for the hearing of an application made under section 4, the Court shall decide the following points as preliminary issues :- (a) Whether the person for the adjustment of whose debts the application has been made is a debtor. (b) Whether the total amount of debts due from such person on the date of the application exceeds Rs. 15,000. (2) If the Court finds that such persons is not a debtor or that the total amount of debts due from such persons on the date of the application is more than Rs. 15,000 the Court shall dismiss the application forthwith : Provided that before the application is so dismissed the creditors or any of them may remit any specific portion of their claim so as to reduce the total amount of the debts of all the creditors due from such person on the date of the application to a sum not exceeding Rs. 15,000. In such case, the Court shall not dismiss the application but shall proceed further with the same. (3) The portion of the debts in respect of which the claim is remitted under sub-section (2) shall be extinguished. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the expression " the date of the application " shall mean the date of an application which has been made within the period prescribed under lection 4 and where there are two or more applications made for adjustment of debts of the same debtor, the date of the last of such applications. Section 19 : (1) All suits, appeals, applications for execution and proceedings in respect of any debt pending in any civil or revenue Court shall, if they involve the questions whether the person from whom such debt is due is a debtor and whether the total amount of debts due from him exceeds Rs. 15,000 be transferred to the Court. (2) When an application for adjustment of debts made to a Court under section 4 or a statement submitted to a Court under section 15 includes a debt in respect of which a suit, appeal, application for execution or proceeding liable to be transferred under sub-section (1) is pending before a civil or revenue Court, the Court shall give notice thereof to such other Court. On receipt of such notice, such other Court shall transfer the suit, appeal, application or proceeding as the case may, to the Court. (3) When any suit, appeal, application or proceeding is transferred to the Court under subjection (1) or sub-section (2), the Court shall proceed as if an application under section 4 had been made to it. (4) If the Court to which any suit, appeal, application or proceeding is transferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), decides the preliminary issue mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 18 in the negative or that mentioned in clause (b) of the said sub-section (1) in the affirmative, it shall retransfer the suit, appeal, application or proceeding to the Court from which it had been transferred to itself after the disposal and subject to the result of the appeal where an appeal is filed and after the expiry of the period prescribed for an appeal where no appeal is filed. (5) When any suit, appeal, application or proceeding is retransferred to the Court under subsection (4) the said Court shall proceed with the same. (6) When such suit, appeal, application or proceeding involves the determination of any issue entirely unconnected with the adjustment of debts, the transfer of such suit, appeal, application or proceeding under this section shall not empower the Court to determine the said issue and the determination of such issue shall be made as if the transfer of the suit, appeal, application or proceeding was not made under this section. (7) When any question arises regarding the validity of the transfer or retransfer under this section of any suit, appeal, application or proceeding or if any question arises whether any issue is or is not entirely unconnected with the adjustment of debts, the Court before which such question arises, if it is not the District Court, may refer the question for decision of the District Court and the District Court itself decide the same. The decision of the District Court in either case shall be final. "

(3.) Under the above provisions, where a debt is over Rs. 15,000 the case cannot be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction to entertain debt settlement applications. In this view, the lower Court was justified because the petitioners admitted that the debt was over Rs. 15,000. In paragraph 3 of the petition, they stated thus :