S B BUDH SINGH Vs. MAYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that has been raised in this appeal is that the decision of the Tribunal on issue No. 4 is wrong and erroneous. The Tribunal has made an order scaling down the debts on the application of the appellant who is a displaced debtor. The decree of Inder Singh respondent, however, was of January, 1952, and a point had arisen before the Tribunal whether the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (hereinafter called the Act) did not apply to the aforesaid decree. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act did not apply to the decree in question by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act.

(2.) Section 21 of the Act is as follows :-

(3.) The Tribunal appears to consider that in view of the fact that the decree was passed subsequent to the commencement of the Act it was to be excluded altogether for the purposes of scaling down the debts under the provisions of section 32. This view, however, does not appear to be correct. Section 21 (1) merely provides that decrees which have been passed before the commencement of the Act can be revised so as to be brought in accord with the provisions of the Act. Now this has reference only to section 29 according to which on and from the 15th day of August, 1947, no interest can accrue or can be deemed to have accrued in respect of any debt owed by a displaced person. The position is like this. If a decree has been passed prior to the commencement of the Act in which interest has been awarded for a period subsequent to the 15th of August, 1947, that decree can be revised and the interest can be disallowed while calculating the amount of the debt. Section 21 (1) cannot possibly have, from the language used in it, any reference to section 32 which provides for scaling down of debts. The machinery which has been provided for ascertaining the debts and for their scaling down is contained in the Act and section 21 (1) is relevant only for determining the amount of a decretal debt in a particular case. If the decree was passed before the commencement of the Act, the debt would be calculated after taking into account the provisions of section 29 and if the decree is subsequent, as it was in the present case, then section 29 could not apply and the decree could not be revised. In other words, the total amount of the decree was to be taken to be a debt for the purposes of section 32. In section 32 the words used are -