SM PURSOTTOME DEVI BAGLA Vs. DWARKA PRASAD BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in Suit No. 2154 of 1938 has given notice to the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, to show cause why he should not carry out the orders of this Court and renew a Government promissory note in the name of the plaintiff and pay to her the accrued interest. The Reserve Bank of India is admittedly not a party to this suit, and the learned Advocate- General has suggested to the Court that the Reserve Bank of India cannot be brought before the Court on an application of this nature. He has referred to the third party procedure, known to the Courts in England, and has argued that no such procedure is available in this Court. It appears, however, that the Reserve Bank of India have in the course of correspondence with the plaintiff's attorney set out their views with regard to the controversy, and, after stating that in their opinion the full facts have not been placed before the learned Judges who had made previous orders, they have asked in the event of the plaintiff applying for any directions of the Court, that they might be given notice of such application and that the application should not be made ex parte. In the circumstances the bank cannot object to this application being made in their presence.

(2.) The question at issue is the renewal of a Government promissory note. That note belonged to a lady named Johor Bibi, who is dead. The plaintiff filed a suit in December 1938 against some of the members of Johor Bibi's family for the recovery of property, which she claimed to be her mother's stridhan. The suit was settled and a consent decree was passed in terms of the settlement. Under the terms of settlement two of the defendants were to hand over to the plaintiff a Government promissory note of the face value of Rs. 2,30,000 in full settlement of all claims of the estate of Johor Bibi against the said defendants, and the plaintiff agreed that she would have no further claim against them. The plaintiff then deposited the Government promissory note with the Reserve Bank of India for the purpose of having it renewed. In the meantime two persons claiming to be reversioners, namely the sons of a deceased daughter of Johor Bibi, wrote to the bank requesting them not to renew the Government promissory note on the ground that the previous suit by the present plaintiff was collusive and ignored their rights, which they intended shortly to establish by means of a suit. They filed the suit in June 1939, and obtained an interim injunction ex parte restraining the petitioner from dealing with the Government promissory note pending the hearing of the application. The application was heard on the following day and the Court confirmed the injunction restraining the applicant from dealing with or disposing of the Government promissory note for Rs. 2,30,000 which she had obtained from the estate of Johor Bibi, but provided that the injunction would not prevent her from having the Government promissory note renewed and transferred into her name, nor from withdrawing any interest or arrears of interest which had accrued due thereon.

(3.) The petitioner then applied once more to the Reserve Bank for the note to be renewed in her name so as to enable her to draw the interest. The bank, however, wrote to her that they were advised that the decree, under which she claimed title, was declaratory and did not afford protection to the bank against claims by a third party. On 30 August 1939, an application was made to this Court for an order that the Reserve Bank do forthwith renew the said Government promissory note, that the Registrar of this Court do endorse the Government promissory note in favour of the petitioner, and that the Reserve Bank do pay all interest due on the said Government promissory note to the petitioner. The bank were not parties to the application and it is alleged that their point of view was never placed before the Court. The only order made on that application was that the Registrar should endorse the Government promissory note in favour of the petitioner, the order being subject to the previous injunction of the Court. The Registrar, as directed, endorsed the promissory note, and once more an application was made to the bank. On 25 January 1940, this Court decided the reversioner's suit. It was held that the interest acquired by the present petitioner was that of a limited owner. She was heiress to her mother's stridhan but she acquired no absolute right to the property in suit. The Court also issued an in-junction restraining her from alienating the Government promissory note.