KRISHNA DAS Vs. RAM GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the decree-holders arising out of execution proceedings. A final decree for sale was passed on 30 April 1919 in favour of the appellants against the respondents. The property ordered to be sold was found to be ancestral property with the consequence that the civil Court under Section 68, Civil P.C., transferred the execution of the decree to the Collector. The decree was for about Rupees 11,000, and the Collector accepted payment of Rs. 6,000 and granted a lease of the property for a period of 12 years directing that the lease money, at the rate of Rs. 500 a year, should be paid towards the discharge of the decretal amount. He also reduced the rate of interest from 6% to 5%. The decree- holders sought to get this order revised in appeal by the Commissioner, but failed. An application to the Board of Revenue also was infructuous.

(2.) The decree-holders then applied to the execution Court praying that all proceedings taken by the Collector may be set aside and the decree-holders may be permitted to take out execution afresh. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the Collector's procedure was not in accordance with Schedule 3, para. 1, Civil P.C., and has allowed the application, so far as the Collector's order related to the reduction of interest, but has declined to do anything further. The decree- holders have appealed, but the respondents have submitted to the order.

(3.) There can be no doubt that the order of the Collector was not justified by the provisions of Schedule 3. His jurisdiction was limited to the powers conferred upon him by that schedule. Para. 1 only could apply to a mortgage decree for sale. Para. 2 and the provisions of some of the subsequent paragraphs were inapplicable because the decree was not a simple money decree. Under para. 1 (b) he could raise the amount of the decree by letting any property for a term on payment of a premium, but that implied the raising of the whole of the decretal amount within a reasonable time. It did not permit of payment by instalments, which even a civil Court had no power to direct. It is also clear that the Collector had no jurisdiction whatsoever to reduce the amount of the decree by reducing the rate of interest.