1953 (1) TMI 30 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Execution of the compromise decree.
2. Application of U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and U.P. Encumbered Estates Act.
3. Restitution of possession and recovery of profits.
4. Validity of the sale deed executed during execution proceedings.
5. Application of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding restitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Execution of the Compromise Decree:
On July 4, 1933, Rai Bahadur Lala Hari Kishen Das obtained a final compromise decree for Rs. 3,88,300-2-6 based on two simple mortgages executed by Thakur Raghuraj Singh in 1928 and 1931. The compromise included a provision for Raghuraj Singh to sell certain villages to Hari Kishen Das to satisfy the decree. However, due to a potential notification by the Court of Wards, the sale transaction fell through. When the Court of Wards decided not to assume management of the estate, Hari Kishen Das sought execution of the decree, leading to objections by Raghuraj Singh and subsequent legal proceedings.

2. Application of U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and U.P. Encumbered Estates Act:
Raghuraj Singh sought relief under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act to reduce his indebtedness and save his property. The civil judge altered the decretal amount and allowed payment in installments. This amended decree was initially set aside by the Chief Court but later restored by His Majesty in Council. Raghuraj Singh's application under the Encumbered Estates Act was initially successful but was eventually quashed by the Board of Revenue.

3. Restitution of Possession and Recovery of Profits:
Following the Privy Council's decision, Bhagwant Singh (successor to Raghuraj Singh) applied for restoration of possession and recovery of profits wrongfully realized by Hari Kishen Das and his adopted son. The subordinate judge allowed restitution conditional on payment of the accumulated sum due under the unpaid installments. Both parties appealed to the Chief Court, which dismissed the judgment-debtor's appeal and upheld the decree holder's appeal, leading to further appeals before the Supreme Court.

4. Validity of the Sale Deed Executed During Execution Proceedings:
The sale deed executed on February 24, 1939, by the civil judge on behalf of Raghuraj Singh was contested. The Chief Court confirmed the validity of the sale, stating that the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act had been quashed before the sale, and the sale was not affected by the bar imposed by Section 7 of the Act. The appellant's contention that the amending Act XI of 1939 should have retrospective operation was rejected.

5. Application of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure Regarding Restitution:
The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to restitution after the reversal of the compromise decree by the Privy Council. The Chief Court held that the sale in 1939 was inevitable due to the judgment-debtor's default in paying three installments. The judgment emphasized that restitution should place parties in the position they would have occupied but for the erroneous decree. The court concluded that the sale was not solely a consequence of the reversed decree, as the judgment-debtor was in default under the amended decree as well. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to restitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Chief Court's judgment. The court held that the sale was inevitable under the circumstances and that the judgment-debtor was not entitled to restitution. The court emphasized the importance of satisfying the decretal debt and concluded that setting aside the sale would unjustly benefit the judgment-debtor and harm the decree holder. The appeals were dismissed with costs.