SUJANSING AJITSING MOHOTA Vs. RAMCHANDRARAO KRISHNARAO SINGAROO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a miscellaneous second appeal against the order dated 6th February 1945, by Mr. H.C. Sen, District Judge, Wardha, in civil Appeal No. 27-B of 1944. The appeal arises out of execution proceedings in Execution Case No. 52-B of 1942.

(2.) THE executing Court held that under Section 15(3), Debt Conciliation Act the decree of the appellant decree holder could not be executed until all amounts payable under an agreement dated 30th September 1939 had been paid or the agreement had ceased to subsist. The execution application was dismissed and the appeal against the order of the executing Court having failed, this application was filed. The judgment-debtor Ramchandra Shingru was the 0-16-0 owner of mouza Parda in Hinganghat tahsil. This village was sold for arrears of land revenue and was purchased on 30th November 1939 by the decree holder (appellant). The sale was confirmed on 7th September 1940. Ramchandra Shingru continued as the lambatdar till 4th January 1941 when the present appellant was appointed lambardar in his place. Land revenue fell in arrears in the years 1938-39 and 1939-40. The judgment-debtor Ramchandra Shingru did not pay the amount and on 6th January 1941 the present appellant paid this amount because the Tahsildar was threatening to issue a warrant against him.

(3.) ONLY one point is involved in this appeal, namely, whether the decretal amount can be described as a "debt" within the meaning of the Act. The plaintiff's suit was one under Section 69, Contract Act. He paid the amount to save the property he had bought at the sale and under Section 69 he was entitled to recover it from the previous lambardar. The two Courts below have held that the definition of "debt" covers the case and that the decretal amount not being recoverable as arrears of land revenue the definition must be held to cover it. Since under Section 16(b) of the Act a civil Court is not competent to entertain an execution application in respect of which there is a bar of Section 15(3), the application for execution was dismissed.