MADARIPUR COMMERCIAL BANK LTD Vs. LAL MOHAN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule raises a question of general importance as to the true scope of Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act Of several points urged before the authorities below that single one was urged before this Court. The question arises out of the following facts. On 21- 2-1924, the father of the opposite parties took a loan of Rs 12,000 from the petitioner bank on a mortgage of 15 items of property. On 9-6-1934 the bank obtained a final mortgage decree for a little over Rs. 20,000 and at a sale held on 21-2-1936, against the opposite parties who had been substituted for their father on his death it purchased 13 of the properties for a sum of Rs. 17,550 which naturally was set off against the decretal dues. The remaining two properties were purchased by one Lokenath Poddar for Rs. 4175. The sale proceeds were more than sufficient to satisfy the decree and the balance left was attached and taken away by some other creditors of the opposite parties. The petitioner bank obtained possession of the properties purchased by it on 2-12-1936.

(2.) Section 37A, which was introduced into the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act by Act II (2) of 1942, came into force on 18-6-1942. On 14 December following, the opposite parties made an application before the Madaripur Special Debt Settlement Board for relief under the new section. They were adjudged agricultural debtors on 29-6-1943, but the petitioner appealed and was able to obtain from the Appellate Officer an order for a further and fuller consideration of the matter. That consideration took place on 19-12 1944, when the Board again found the opposite parties to be agricultural debtors and they held against the contention of the petitioner that the purchase at the execution sale having been made not by the decree-holder alone, but by the decree-holder and a third party, Section 37A could not apply. An appeal from this order was dismissed by the Appellate Officer on 21-6-1945, who gave certain reasons for the view taken by him and an application under Section 40A only pro. duced an extremely brief order by an Additional District Judge to the effect that the order of the Appellate Officer was "quite justified." The petitioner then moved this Court and obtained the present rule.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the view taken by the authorities below was wrong and that Section 37A, having regard to all its terms, could apply only to a case where the decree-holder was the sole purchaser and the sale proceeds were exactly sufficient to meet the decretal dues. The inevitable answer of the opposite parties was that the terms of the section were plain and unqualified and full effect must be given to them, as they stood. Reference was also made to the amendment of Section 35 of the Act as showing that the Legislature did not at least intend to exclude cases where the decree had not been fully satisfied by the sale.