GOPAL CHANDRA HALDAR Vs. NEPAL CHANDRA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of Khulna under Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935. The material facts giving rise to the present rule are not disputed and they are as follows: The petitioner before me borrowed Rs. 1200 in Baisakh 1337 B.S. and executed a simple mortgage bond in favour of opposite party No. 1. In the month of Chaitra 1341 B.S. he borrowed Rs. 470 and executed a second mortgage in favour of opposite party No. 2, the son of opposite party No. 1. Thereafter the petitioner before me presented an application under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, before the Bagerhat Special Board. Sometime subsequent to the presentation of this application the Rajnagar Debt Settlement Board was constituted and on the recommendation of the Bagerhat Special Board the application was transferred on 9-1-1940, to the Rajnagar Debt Settlement Board, for disposal. The Rajnagar Debt Settlement Board took evidence and came to the conclusion that though the bonds were simple mortgage bonds, in fact possession of the mortgaged property was delivered to the mortgagee; and they further found that opposite party No. 2 was merely a benamidar for opposite party No. 1. They accordingly took the two debts together and determined that the total amount due under these bonds was Rs. 685-10- 0. The creditors appealed and their appeal was heard by the appellate officer. The appellate officer directed that the two debts be considered separately and separately determined, and remanded the application to the Rajnagar Debt Settlement Board for further determination of the debts under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, the Rajnagar Debt Settlement Board on 16- 2 1941, determined the two debts separately and also gave instructions with regard to the settlement of the debts, but they omitted to draw up a formal award and sign the same as provided in Section 25 of the Act.

(2.) There was no appeal against this order. There was apparently no application to the Rajnagar Board for review of the order; but on 6-11-1941, the Sub-Divisional Officer of Bagerhat transferred the application under Section 39 (1) of the Act to the Ujalkur Debt Settlement Board for disposal. Thereafter the Ujalkur Debt Settlement Board took evidence and again determined the debts of the present petitioner under Section 18 of the Act The present petitioner applied to the Ujalkur Debt Settlement Board for review of their order and the application for review was allowed. On reconsideration of the matter, the Ujalkur Debt Settlement Board again on 29-11-1944, made the same order, which they had previously made and which they had been asked to review.

(3.) The present petitioner moved the appellate officer in appeal, and before the appellate officer he contended that inasmuch as the debt had been determined under Section 18, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act by the Rajnagar Debt Settlement Board, the Ujalkur Debt Settlement Board had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter and again determine the debts. The learned Appellate Officer rejected this argument in these words: The argument that the Ujalkur D.S. Board has no jurisdiction to decide the case is not tenable as under Section 39 (1), the Collector whose power is vested in the Section D.O. can transfer a case from any D.S. Board to any other D.S. Board within his jurisdiction. On the merits the appellate officer was of opinion that the order of the Ujalkur Debt Settlement Board was justified.