AHMADUNNISA BEGUN Vs. SRI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Jagirdars' Debt Settlement Board, Hyderabad in O.S. 189/60 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which was transferred to them under Section 25 of the Jagirdars' Debt Settlement Act, for trial and disposal.

(2.) The suit was first filed in the City Civil Court by one Shri Ram, a resident of Hari Bowli for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3745/- made up of a sum of Rs. 3500/- towards principal due on a promissory note executed by the defendants (1) Shebzasa Mir Mohd. Ali Khan and his wife (2) Ahmadunnissa Begum and Rs. 245/- towards interest. He contended in the plaint that on 11-8-1958 the defendants together borrowed a sum of Rs. 3500/- from him agreeing to pay interest at 9% p.a, and executed a promissory note, that in spite of repeated demands, they have not paid the same. The defendants then did not file a written statement, but it vas contended by the 2nd defendant that she was a Jagirdar and therefore the case should be transferred to the file of the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board at Hyderabad for adjudication. It was accordingly transferred under the provisions of section 25 of the Hyderabad Debt Settlement Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The S.C. No. 350-2-1961 on the file of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court also, against the same parties, for recovery of Rs. 1500/- was similarly transferred. The Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board enquiring under section 24 of the Act, found that the 2nd defendant was a Jagirdar in her own right, that the 1st defendant was not a Jagirdar, that the liabilities of the 2nd defendant were in excess of Rs. 5000/- and began to adjudicate on the claim. In this appeal we are now concerned with the claim made in O.S. 189/60 on the file of the Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which has been transferred to the Board. After a statement was filed by the defendants and examining the witnesses, the Board, held that the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3500/- I.G. on a pronote executed on 11-8-1958, that the contention of the defendants that the claimant therein (Plaintiff) had been receiving from the office of the Accounts Officer, H.E.H. The Nizam's Trust, allowances payable to both of them with effect from December 1952 to October 1959 should be adjusted towards this debt is not tenable, that the claim is based on a cash payment of Rs. 3500/- and this is pot in continuation of the previous monetary transaction subsisting between the two parties, that the money claimed is therefore due and has to be paid by the 2nd defendant with interest at 6% p.a. and that with the monies spent on court fee and a sum of Rs. 200/- paid to the advocates towards his fees, the claimant is entitled to recover Rs. 4547-50. They further directed that after the appeal time is over, the file may be retransferred to the Court concerned, so-that the proceedings may continue against the other debtor Mohd. Ali Khan if the creditor so wishes. Hence this appeal.

(3.) During the course of the hearing of the appeal, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-creditor that the Jagirdars' Debt Settlement Board has no jurisdiction to entertain this claim and adjudicate on it, as the debt itself had come into existence only on the date of the pronote dated 11-8-1958 Under Section 11(1) of the Act, any Jagirdar residing in the State of Hyderabad or his creditors, may make an application to the Board om or before such date as the Government may notify in the jarida for the Settlement of the debts due by the Jagirdar. Under Section 25 (I) of the Act, all suits, appeals, applications for execution etc. taken' before Courts, concerning debts, in which application under section 11 of the Act could be made to the Board and involving the question of the status of the debtor and the total extent of his debts, are liable to be transferred, to the Board if they are pending on the date notified under section 11. It was admitted that the time fixed by the notification was 30-6-53 and that it was not further extended. If that is so, the Board can have jurisdiction to entertain applications regarding the adjudication of debts only with regard to the debts that have come into existence earlier and are subsisting on that date and it will have no jurisdiction to enquire into debts that had come into existence there-after. The Board neither can entertain by it self under section 11, nor can it entertain by transfer from any other court under section 25 (1) the dispute regarding any debts that have come into existence after that date. This has also been so held in State Bank of Hyderabad v. M.R. Bhagwandas and Sons, 1963 II An. W.R. 147. The suit claim is based on a pronote dated 11-8-1958. Therefore the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board will have no jurisdiction to enquire into this debt. It is contended that this debt was actually in renewal of a prior pronote dated 1-12-1954 for Rs. 2500/- and another dated 10-12-1956 for Rs. 2500/- under which compound interest was calculated after adjustment of some payments and the Board should enquire into the history of the debt under the provisions of section 28 of the Act and scale it down as per those provisions. Even if this contention is to be accepted, the earliest of the pronotes is dated 1-12-1954 as shown in the statement of the defendants themselves and this is after the dated fixed in the notification i.e, 30-6-1953 when the Board is given jurisdiction to entertain claims and enquire into debts terminated. Therefore as the debt itself has come into existence subsequent to that date, the Board cannot have jurisdiction to entertain the case even by transfer from the City Civil Court and the III Addl. Judge, City Civil Court should not have transferred the suit for disposal to the Board under Section 25 of the Act. The Board having adjudicated on the matter without jurisdiction its decision is null and void. The suit has therefore to be re-transferred to the City Civil Court for disposal according to law.