TRIMBAK LAL Vs. DHATRIK VEERANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross-appeals arise from a decree of the trial Court, whereby Rs. 5,828-12-0 have been allowed against the person and property of Trimbaklal, the first defendant, and Rs. 2,205-11-8 against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in the case. The trial Court has also given interest at the annual rate of six rupees from Bahman 21, 1341-F (December 25, 1931), subject to the interest not exceeding the principal amount.

(2.) Briefly, the claim which has been partially decreed, is that Raja Mohanlal, the father of the first defendant, was a jagirdar, and had given ten years' licence of his jagir village Sargapur in favour of the plaintiff and Narsing Rao, the fifth defendant in the case ; that the licence to tap and sell toddy for the annual sum of Rs. 11,850 was to begin from 1336-F (1926-1927) and end in 1346-F (1936-1937), and that a sub-lease for an annual sum of Rs. 3,850 was given to defendants' Nos. 2 to 4 from 1337-F (1927-1928) to Isfandar 1341-F (January, 1932). The plaintiff's complaint is that within the licence period the defendant-jagirdar had repudiated the contract, assumed supervision from Ardibehist 1340-F (March, 1931), and has taken from the shikmidars what they were liable to pay to the plaintiff. The quantum of damages as against the jagirdar was claimed at Rs. 13,666-7-10 and against subcontractors at Rs. 2,352-12-6. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid amounts according to the plaint are the shares of the plaintiff alone, as he had asserted that his partner Narsing Rao was not willing to join in claiming his share of the six annas in die licence. The claim was filed on Bhaman 10,1341-F (December 14, 1931), and the decree of the trial Court is dated Aban 21, 1351-F (September 26, 1942). The first defendant has filed an appeal against what has been partly allowed against him and the plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal claiming that part of his plaint amount which has not been granted by the trial Court.

(3.) We think that these appeals can be disposed of on short legal grounds. After the abolition of the jagirs under the Jagir Abolition Regulation, the Hyderabad Legislature enacted the Hyderabad Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act, XII of 1952. By section 2(e) 'debt' has been defined to mean any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from a jagirdar, whether payable under a decree or order of any Civil Court or otherwise, and ' debtor' has been directed to be construed accordingly. Section 4 authorises the Government to constitute by a notification one or more Boards for the settlement of debts or any class of debts. Section 6 empowers the aforesaid Board to decide all questions arising on settlement of debt. Chapter II contains several provisions regarding procedure for settlement of debt. Under section 11, a Jagirdar or his creditor can make an application to the Board of competent jurisdiction on or before such date as the Government may notify in the Jarida for settlement of debts due by the jagirdar. On the application having been made, the- Board is to decide certain preliminary questions which are enumerated in section 34, and the consequence of failure to make such an application is contained in section 22(1). As it is important, we quote in extenso the provisions :