LAHORI LAL Vs. KASTURI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these appeals (F.A.O. Nos. 3 and 32 of 1954) the point involved is whether an application could be made by the creditors before the Tribunal. In F.A.O. 32 of 1954 a mortgage was executed by the father of Lahori Lal and others in favour of Kasturi Lal who under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 , made an application on the 9th of December, 1952, the object of which is to get a declaration under section 16(2) of the Act. The Tribunal has held that an application such as this, i.e., by a person who is a displaced person and is a mortgagee can be made under section 10 of the Act against the legal representatives of a deceased mortgagor. Mr. Sarin has referred to two judgments, (1) Sahib Ditta Mal v. Mohra Mal,1945 AIR(Lah 58 and (2) Dalip Singh v. Honda Ram,1947 AIR(Lah) 240 Both of these judgments support the contention of the learned counsel that a legal representative of a debtor is not a debtor within the meaning of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, the words of which are very similar to the words used in the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act.

(2.) In the other appeal (F.A.O. 3 of 1954) a question similar to the one in F.A.O. 32 of 1954 has arisen, i.e., whether a legal representative of person who would have been a creditor can make an application under sections 10 and 13 of the Debts Adjustment Act. There is a further point raised in that case and that is that an appeal is provided for in section 40 against any final decree or order of the Tribunal. In this case the Tribunal passed a decree but no decree has been filed and the question is whether the appeal is competent. Mr. Chiranjiva Lal Aggarwal submits that it was not necessary for him to appeal against the final decree as the order itself was appealable. These are questions of some importance and I would, therefore, refer them to a Division Bench and direct that the papers be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the constitution of such a Bench.

(3.) The only question involved in this appeal is whether a displaced mortgagee can seek a relief under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (No. LXX of 1951) against the legal representatives of a deceased mortgagor. There is not dispute regarding facts which are relevant for the purposes of deciding this question. One Balmukand who resided in Sheikhupura town with his family before partition mortgaged with possession a shop situated in that town for Rs. 5,000/- by a registered document dated the 7th August, 1945 in favour of Kasturi Lal who was then and is still a minor. Balmukand, however, retained possession of the shop as a tenant under the mortgagee. The mortgage deed recites that the shop was acquired by the mortgagor and that money is required for business purposes. It appears that Balmukand lost his life during 1947 riots in Sheikupura. Admittedly, Kasturi Lal mortgagee and the mortgagor's sons and grandson were residents of Sheikhupura and migrated to India on account of the partition of the country in 1947. The mortgagee made this application under section 10 of the Debts Adjustment Act to get a decree of Rs. 6,500/- as principle and interest declared on the mortgaged property and to get this charge instigated to the prescribed authority under section 52 of the Act. In this application sons and a grandson of the original mortgagor were impleaded as respondents. The application was resisted inter alia on the ground that the legal representatives of a mortgagor are not displaced debtors as defined in the Act. The Tribunal rejected this defence. The alleged debtors then appealed to this Court and it was referred to a Division Bench by the learned Single Judge and it has come before us under the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.