SUNDAR LAL Vs. KAUSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal from an order arising out of a suit for accounts under Section 33, Agriculturists Belief Act, on the allegations that the plaintiff borrowed two sums of Rs. 150 and Rs. 100 under bonds dated 15 May 1931 and 22 August, 1931 respectively, that the plaintiff repaid Rs. 490 to the defendant; that the latter appropriated Rupees 349 towards the bond of 15 May 1931 and the balance of Rs. 141 was appropriated towards the second bond, that the plaintiff is an agriculturist and that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 30 of the Act. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the grounds that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist, that the bond of 15 May 1931 having been fully satisfied no accounting with respect to that could be claimed under the provisions of the Act, that the plaintiff paid only Rs. 186 which was appropriated in full satisfaction of the first bond; that nothing was paid towards the second bond. The trial Court upon a consideration of evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist; that the first bond was fully satisfied and no accounting with respect to that could be claimed; that Rs. 133-4-0 was due on account of the second bond provided the Agriculturists Relief Act applied and the plaintiff was held entitled to reduction of interest. The learned Munsif eventually dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court disagreed with the findings of the Court of first instance and held that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and that the accounting with respect to the first bond could be claimed. On these findings the suit was, remanded to the Court below for trial in the light of the observations contained in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. The defendant now comes to this Court in appeal.

(2.) The first question for determination is : Is it open to the plaintiff to claim an accounting with respect to the first bond which has been fully satisfied? Section 33 provides that an agriculturist debtor may sue for an account of money lent or advanced to.... The expression debtor to my mind indicates that the relationship of debtor and creditor is subsisting between the parties. It would be a misnomer to call a person a debtor who has fully satisfied his debt long before the suit. It is conceivable that in a suit under Section 33 on accounting it may be found that nothing is due from the plaintiff, but in such a case according to the defendant, the debt subsisted, at the time of the suit. The Section provides a summary remedy for the decision of disputes between a creditor and a debtor.

(3.) In the present case however we find that it is admitted that the bond of 15th May 1931 was returned to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was informed by the defendant that it was fully satisfied. For the purposes of the decision of this issue, it is not necessary to consider whether only Rs. 186 was paid by the plaintiff as alleged by the defendant or Rs. 490 was paid, as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his statement clearly stated that he paid Rs. 490 in one lump sum. When he paid the money ha asked the defendant that the bigger bond should be paid off and the balance should be paid towards the second bond. Under these circumstances, there can be no room for doubt that the parties fully understood the position and intended to close the transaction with respect to the bond of 15th May 1931. My attention has not been drawn to any provision of the Act which specifically provides that debts that had been fully satisfied to the knowledge of the parties may be reopened. Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to Sub-section (4), Section 33 which lays down that subject to Section 30(4) or Section 31(2) as the case may be, if the defendant is found to have been overpaid the Court shall pass a decree for a refund of the amount of such overpayment in favour of the plaintiff. Section 30, Sub-clause (4) provides as follows: Any amount already received by the creditor on account of interest in excess of that due under this Section shall be credited towards the principal; but nothing in this Section shall be deemed to entitle a debtor to claim refund of any part of the interest already paid by him.