POORANMAL Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this revision is whether the amount found due towards arrears of rent and damages already adjudicated and ascertained tinder a decree of the Civil Courts as subsisting on the appointed day i.e. 15-81973 would be covered by the term "debt" as defined in M. P. (Anusuchit Jati Avam Anusuchit Jana Jati) Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (hereinafter called as the Act).

(2.) The facts in brief are that the applicant-decree-holder instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne pofit at the same rate of Rs. 220/-per month against the defendants-tenants. The suit was decreed on 22-12-1970. A sum of Rs. 5,500/- was decreed towards the arrears of rent and mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 220/- per month were also decreed. It was not disputed that the judgment-debtors are the members of the Scheduled Caste belonging to Beldar community in Shahdol District, which has been notified as Scheduled Caste by the Presidential Order issued under the provisions of the Constitution of India. It was also not disputed that the appointed day, as contemplated by the Act in respect of the debtors belonging to Scheduled Caste, was 15th of Aug., 1973. Under these circumstances, the Court below held that the ascertained amount due under the decree was a liability subsisting on the appointed day and as such was a debt to which the provisions of the Act were applicable and accordingly the Civil Court could not proceed with the execution of the decree. The only point which could be and was pressed in the context of the aforesaid undisputed circumstances was whether the liability under the decree in question was a "debt" as defined in the Act ? It was not disputed that if it was held that liability towards arrears of rent and ascertained damages under the decree was covered by the term "debt" as defined in the Act, the orders made by the Courts are liable to be upheld.

(3.) It would be relevant to reproduce the definition of the term "debt" as given in the Act :