MT PANCHAM KOER Vs. RANBIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the legal representative of the landlord applicant. One Chaudhari Sheo Baran Singh applied under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act before the Collector of Agra. The Collector sent the papers to the learned Special Judge in due course. After the papers had reached the Court of the learned Special Judge, Ch. Sheo Baran Singh applied for amendment of a decree, No. 81 of 1932 of the Court of the Civil Judge of Agra which had been passed against him on the basis of a mortgage deed. This application was filed before the Civil Judge and was for amendment of the decree under Section 80, Agriculturists Relief Act by reducing the rate of interest and calculating it in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

(2.) An objection was taken before the learned Civil Judge that inasmuch as Ch. Sheo Baran Singh had already applied under the Encumbered Estates Act the proceedings under Section 30, Agriculturists Relief Act were not maintainable by reason of the provisions of Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act. The learned Civil Judge decided against Ch. Sheo Baran Singh and dismissed the application for amendment of the decree on 6 February 1937.

(3.) Against that order a civil Revn. No. 166 of 1937 was filed in this Court. The revision came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court, and one of the points considered was whether the provisions of Section 7(b), Encumbered Estates Act applied to an application filed by the landlord applicant for amendment of a decree under the Agriculturists Relief Act. The Bench of this Court held that: Proceedings, attachments, processes and suits mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act are proceedings, attachments, processes and suits against the landlord in respect of debts and the landlord himself is not necessarily under any disability for taking proceedings which he may be entitled to take under the law for the protection of his interest. They went on to hold that there was no force in the contention of the decree-holder that the application under Section 30, Agriculturists Relief Act was incompetent and was liable to be dismissed. They, therefore, allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Court below and directed that Court to reinstate the application of Sheo Baran Singh dated 12 December, 1936, and to dispose of it according to law. An attempt to have this order reviewed was made by the decree-holder, Ranbir Prasad, and the matter was again considered by the same Bench. The review application was, however, dismissed on 28 April 1939, on the ground that the application for review was not competent. The Court, however, while dismissing the application for review, gave the additional reasons in support of the view taken in the year 1938. These two decisions are Sheo Baran Singh V/s. Ranbir Prasad and Ranbir Prasad V/s. Sheo Baran Singh .