BHUBARAM Vs. BHIKAS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi dated 10-2-1983.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant-respondents for the recovery of Rs. 8,429. 70 on the basis of mortgage deed dated 21-9-1963 by which a sum of Rs. 8,000/- were advanced. THE respondents contested the suit during the trial. However, a preliminary decree was passed on 18-9-1972 and later on a final decree was also passed on 1-10-1973. One of the defendants, namely, Wall Mohammed, filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indab-tedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for determination of his debt. After hearing both the parties, the debt relief court determined the debt of Wali Mohd. to the tune of Rs. 3,288. 70. A scheme of repayment by instalments was also drawn. THE judgment debtor deposited the entire amount in the debt relief court. THE petitioner-plaintiffs filed an execution application for execution of the decree passed in the suit and prayed that the decree may be executed against the remaining three judgment-debtors. An application was filed by the judgment-debtors that claim of the decree holder was determined by the debt relief court and the same has been paid. THErefore, the decree passed by the Civil Court is in-executable. THE application of the judgment debtors was accepted. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the appellate court also held that once the debt relief court has scaled down the debt, which was passed in the previous decree the whole decree stood discharged in view of the judgment of the debt relief court and therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by filing the present revision petition.

(3.) THE next question which arises for consideration is that where one decree has been passed against more than one persons out of them one is agriculturist then such decree can be divided or not. Since in the present case the decree passed is a joint and several decree, all persons are jointly and severally liable for the satisfaction of the decree. THEre is no provision in the Act to split up the decree. This question was seriously debated in Akella China Venkatavamdhamulu vs. Muthangi Bachi Ramayya Garu (2; before full bench on reference. But in view of the judgment given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramaswami Iyengar vs. Kailasa THEvar (3) the reference was accordingly answered.