RAI MANMATHA NATH BOSE Vs. SMRENULA BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiffs are suing the defendants for relief under the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940, in respect of a decree obtained against them on 12 June 1935 for Rs. 4,58,058-1-9. This was a consent decree which had been obtained by the Maharaja of Darbhanga in respect of the balance due to him on account of a loan of Rs. 6,00,000 advanced to the predecessors of the plaintiffs. The main reliefs which the plaintiffs seek are a declaration to the effect that they are not liable to pay to the defendants any amount in excess of the limits specified in the Bengal Money-lenders Act, and, in any event, in excess of Rs. 12,00,000 for principal and interest. They also ask for the re-opening of the abovementioned decree and the transactions connected therewith and for release from all further liabilities in respect thereof. The facts relating to this case are admitted by all the parties concerned and are briefly as follows: The principal parties to the suit belong to the same family and their relationship is shown in the following genealogical table:

(2.) On 25 May 1914, all persons interested In certain properties which had belonged to Pashupathi Nath Bose mortgaged the same to the Maharaja of Darbhanga as security for the sum of Rs. 6,00,000. This mortgage carried interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum with half yearly rests. The parties to the mortgage deed were Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi (as trustee of the estate), Amarnath Bose, Amulya Nath Bose. Monmotho Nath Sen (as guardian of Anath Bose who was at that time a minor) and Sarajubala, the wife of Amar. Amar died intestate in 1915 and his wife succeeded to a life interest in his share of the estate. Thereafter Amulya died on 3l December, 1917, after having executed a will whereby, subject to the payment of his debts, he gave his interest in the family property to his nephews (the present plaintiffs) for their lives and after their death to their respective sons absolutely. On 18 June 1919, the Maharaja of Darbhanga instituted suit No. 1618 of 1919 on the mortgage which had been executed in his favour. Sarajubala died on 21 November 1921, and Anath attained majority in January 1923. The Maharaja of Darbhanga obtained a preliminary decree in his suit on 3 July 1923, which was made final on 12 June 1935, for the sum of Rs. 4,58,058.1.9. Admittedly, before 12 June 1935, the mortgagors had paid the Maharaja in cash from time to time an aggregate sum of Rs.8,57,703-10.0. On 17 September 1936, the Maharaja of Darbhanga assigned to Sreematy Renula Bose, the wife of Anath Bose, the decree which he had obtained on 12 June 1935, and the benefit of the securities under the mortgage deed which had been executed in his favour on 25 May 1914. The sum mentioned as consideration for the assignment was rupees 4,59,364-4-3. On the same date Renula again assigned this decree by way of mortgage to Kumar Promotho Nath Roy in consideration of a sum of Rs. 4,75,000. On 2 February, 1937, Renula obtained leave of the Court to execute the decree which had been assigned to her. Admittedly the total sums which have been paid in respect of the mortgage are as follows:

(3.) This suit was filed on 5 September 1940. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that, in view of the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940, no further sum is payable by them under the final decree in the mortgage suit as the total amount realised by Renula and the Maharaja of Darbhanga already exceeds twice the amount of the principal of the original loan. The plaintiffs are represented by Mr. S. M. Bose. The principal defendant is "Renula, who is seeking to execute the decree which was assigned to her on 17 September. 1936. She is represented by Mr. P.C. Ghose. She maintains that the provisions of the Money-lenders Act do not operate as a bar to the execution of the decree, and that, in any event, she and Promotho Nath Roy are protected as bona fide assignees of the final decree which was passed on 12th June 1935. Promotho Nath Roy, defendant 3, has not yet sought to enforce the mortgage executed in his favour by Renula on 17 September 1936, but, by reason of the latter transaction, he is a necessary party to the present suit. The Maharaja of Darbhanga, defendant 2, and Anath, defendant 1, have been impleaded as persons in whose presence it is desirable that this matter should be agitated. Defendants 5 to 10 are the sons of the plaintiffs, who have a beneficial interest in the estate under the terms of the will of Amulya Nath Bose. They are separately represented by Mr. B. C. Ghose and support the plaintiffs. The following issues have been framed: 1. Is the decree in Suit No. 1618 of 1919 (Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameswar Sing Bahadur of Darbhanga V/s. Rai Anath Nath Bose and Ors.) affected by the provisions of the Money-Leaders Act? 2. Is the Money-Lenders Act a bar to the execution of the said decree? 3. Are the plaintiffs entitled to any relief under the Money-Lenders Act, and if so, what?