SONU LAL Vs. BARTRAM KEIGHTLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor whose appeal was summarily dismissed by the learned District Judge. The only question for determination is whether the Court was bound to value the tenure which was sought to be put up for sale in execution of a decree for arrears of mokarrari rent for about Rs. 2600 obtained on 31 July 1941.

(2.) In the execution petition filed on 18 November 1941, the decree-holder valued the tenure at Rs. 2000. The judgment-debtor in his objection filed on 9th January 1942, stated that the valuation was Rs. 30,000. The Courts below have taken the view that as the property which was being put up to sale was a mokarrari kaimi tenure, no duty was cast on the Court to determine its valuation and, therefore, ordered that the valuation stated by the decree-holder and also that stated by the judgment-debtor should be notified in the sale proclamation as allowed by the amendment to Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C.

(3.) In my opinion, the Courts below were in error in refusing to comply with the clear terms of Section 163 (2)(b), Bihar Tenancy Act. This Sub-clause enjoins that the proclamation which is to be issued shall, among other things, state the valuation of the tenure. Nothing could be clearer. But it is suggested that the valuation is only to be made in the manner hereinafter provided, that is to say, in the manner provided by Sub-clause (5), and as in that Sub-clause the word tenure does not appear, it is suggested that the Court need not value the tenure. But this argument does not appear to be sound. Sub-clause (5) only comes into operation when the property to be sold is a holding and by valuing it or a part thereof the entire decree will be satisfied by the proceeds of the sale thereof. As the decree will thus be completely satisfied, an appeal is provided against an order under Sub-clause (5), but no appeal is provided against an order of valuation under Sub- clause (2)(b) when it relates to a tenure. This is because the Legislature, for some reason, did not think it advisable to protect the tenure-holder, and therefore they did not cast any duty on the Court to value either the whole of the tenure or a portion thereof in order to render full satisfaction of the decree by the sale proceeds. In various sections of the amended Bihar Tenancy Act, provisions are now to be found for the sale in execution of a decree of a portion of a holding, for instance, see Secs.158B, 159 and 162A, but nowhere in these or other sections provision is made for the sale of a portion of a tenure.