KACHRA GOTAM ANJANA Vs. JUZAR UDA BALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Debt Relief Court, Mandsaur and maintained on revision by the Collector, Mandsaur, under M. P. Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967.

(2.) According to the petitioner he filed the suit for specific performance of the contract or recovery of money advanced against the respondent No. 1. This suit was filed on the basis of an agreement which was in the nature of agreement to convey immovable property (agricultural land) situated in village Maliya Kherkheda. This suit was pending before the Civil Judge Class II, Mandsaur where a compromise was filed and in accordance with the compromise, a compromise decree was passed on 21-7-64. According to the terms of the compromise decree the respondent was to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1500 in seven instalments, along with interest. It was also agreed that if the respondent No. 1 commits default in payment of any instalment the agricultural lands mentioned in the decree shall stand transferred in the name of the petitioner. It was, therefore, partly a decree for payment of money and in default of instalment a decree for specific performance of the contract. The last instalment in this decree was due on 1-6-68. According to the petitioner no payments of instalment were made till 1970 and ultimately the petitioner filed an execution before the Civil Judge Class II, Mandsaur praying that the decree for specific performance of the contract be executed against the judgment- debtor. A notice of this execution was issued to the judgment-debtor where he raised various objections. It is alleged by the petitioner that these objections were overruled by the executing Court and the execution for specific performance was ordered. Consequently, as the respondent No. 1 did not execute the sale deed, the executing Court itself executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in accordance with this decree. It is also alleged that the petitioner decree-holder was put in possession of the disputed land by the Court through warrant of possession.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 is a balai by caste and therefore, he fell within the definition of schedule caste under M. P. Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967. He, therefore, made an application before the respondent No. 2 the Presiding Officer of the Debt Relief Court, Mandsaur and prayed that the decree in favour of the petitioner was a decree for payment of loan and, therefore, he be discharged of the debt. The Presiding Officer of the Debt Relief Court registered the case under section 24 of the M. P. Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967. The petitioner resisted this case by contending that the decree of the civil Court was not a decree for payment of money and it was not outstanding as according to the petitioner the learned Civil Judge had executed the decree of specific performance and also had executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. These objections were rejected and the application filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed and it was declared that the judgment-debtor respondent No. 1 was discharged of Rs. 1500 and it was further ordered that the disputed land be returned to the respondent No. 1. This order was passed on 5-3-1977.