# RAJA SAILENDRA NARAYAN BHANJ DEO v. KUMAR JAGAT KISHORE PRASAD NARA YAN SINGH

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 119
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar, K. c. DAS GuPTA, N. Rajagopai.A Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raja-sailendra-narayan-bhanj-deo-v-kumar-jagat-kishore-prasad-nara-yan-singh-2583
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Suit for redemption decreed and accounts ordered-Appeal
pending-Mortgage tenure vested in the Stat• by virtue of notification .free for all encumbrances-Effect-Jurisdiction of Civil
Courts, if barnd-Decree of redemption, if becomes infructuousBihar Tenancy Act, 1885. (Bihai· 8 of 1885), s. 171-Bihar Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar 30 of 1950), ss. 14, 35.
K the mortgagee of certain Mokarrari tenures obtained
a decree on his mortgage and put it into execution. Pending
execution, C the mortgagor having failed to pay the rent of
the mortgaged and some other tenures· they became liable to
be solG. ;or the realisation of the ar1ears of rent under a certificate issued for the purpose.
K whose security was thereby
jeopardised paid the arrears and became under s. 171 of the
Bihar Tenancy Act a mortgagee of the tenures for the amount
paid and entitled to possc'5ion of them till repayment. K
thereafter took possession of the tenures. After C had died in
1941, the respondent claiming to represent his estate as receiver and executor under bis will sued the appellant who had
5uccetded to K's interest, for redemption of the mortgages on
the allegation that K and the appellant bad realised from the
rents of the tenures in their possession more ~ban what was
due. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The appellant appealed to the High Court at Patna. While the
appeal was pending there the Bih.ar Land Reforms Act, 1950,
came into force and as a result of a notification issued under it
all the tenures beca1ne vested in the State of Bihar free from
all encun1brances and the proprietors, tenure-holders and all
other persons ceased to have any interest in them _but became
entitled to comp..::nsation £Or the divestrr1ent.
As required by
s. l 4 of the Land Reforms Act, the appellant filed a claim
before the officer appointed under the .Act in respect of his
1nortgages on the tenures and such claim was adjudge at a certain sum on notice to C's repre~entatives \vhich adjudication
later. becarr1C final under a. l 8.
Under the provisions of the
Land Reforms Act, the amount so found due became payable
out of the con1pensation awarde<l. to the proprietors and tenureholdcrs.
Ther~after the appeal before the High Court came
up for hearing. The appeltant contended that in view of the.
provisions of s.35 of the Land Reforn1s Act a civil c.:>urt must
1981
DecembeT 13.
19'1
Rojo Sail1n,ta
J(aa,_,. Bh,oj [)fo
••
X111JU1F J"lat K i.Jlulrt
usodNa o,10n su.1Ja
8.,,.., J.
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962J SUPP·
be deemed to have no jurisdiction to decide any question concerning claims under mortgages of tenures vested in the
Government under the Act. The High Cuurt rejected this
CJntcntion observing that the Act barred a suit by a mortgagee
only and not a suit by a mortgagor and confirmed the decree.
Held, that though the Act did not expressly bar a suit b}·
a mortgagor for redcmptiun, that was the practical and inevitable effect of it. The mongage accounts could not be taken
over again by the civil court "·hen they had been taken under
the Act and the decision in the proceedings under the Act had
become final.
Held, further, m the proceedings under the Act to ascertain the claim of a creditor, the debtor. was entitled to show
what had been paid to the creditor or what the creditor had
realised from the mortgaged property.
Held, alJO, that after a mortgagor had been divested of
the mortgaged property under
the Act
a
redemption
decree would be infructuous as the mortgagor would not then
be entitled to have it reconveycd to hirn.
4'\Jeithl:r would il
then be in the power of the mongagce tu cou \'Cy that property. In fact the mortgagor having been dive><ed of the
property and lost his right of redemption.
Qtury-Whether if the mortgagee had re•lised from the
profits of tile mortgage property more than wha1 wa> due
him on his mortgage, a suit by the mortgagor for refund
would lie?
CIVIL APPELLAT.t: JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 246 of U15ll.
Appeal from the judgment an

## Text

:! S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
119
RAJA SAILENDRA NARAYAN BHANJ DEO
v.
KUMAR JAGAT KISHORE PRASAD
NARA YAN SINGH
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K. c. DAS
GuPTA and N. RAJAGOPAI.A AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Suit for redemption decreed and accounts ordered-Appeal
pending-Mortgage tenure vested in the Stat• by virtue of notification .free for all encumbrances-Effect-Jurisdiction of Civil
Courts, if barnd-Decree of redemption, if becomes infructuousBihar Tenancy Act, 1885. (Bihai· 8 of 1885), s. 171-Bihar Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar 30 of 1950), ss. 14, 35.
K the mortgagee of certain Mokarrari tenures obtained
a decree on his mortgage and put it into execution. Pending
execution, C the mortgagor having failed to pay the rent of
the mortgaged and some other tenures· they became liable to
be solG. ;or the realisation of the ar1ears of rent under a certificate issued for the purpose.
K whose security was thereby
jeopardised paid the arrears and became under s. 171 of the
Bihar Tenancy Act a mortgagee of the tenures for the amount
paid and entitled to possc'5ion of them till repayment. K
thereafter took possession of the tenures. After C had died in
1941, the respondent claiming to represent his estate as receiver and executor under bis will sued the appellant who had
5uccetded to K's interest, for redemption of the mortgages on
the allegation that K and the appellant bad realised from the
rents of the tenures in their possession more ~ban what was
due. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The appellant appealed to the High Court at Patna. While the
appeal was pending there the Bih.ar Land Reforms Act, 1950,
came into force and as a result of a notification issued under it
all the tenures beca1ne vested in the State of Bihar free from
all encun1brances and the proprietors, tenure-holders and all
other persons ceased to have any interest in them _but became
entitled to comp..::nsation £Or the divestrr1ent.
As required by
s. l 4 of the Land Reforms Act, the appellant filed a claim
before the officer appointed under the .Act in respect of his
1nortgages on the tenures and such claim was adjudge at a certain sum on notice to C's repre~entatives \vhich adjudication
later. becarr1C final under a. l 8.
Under the provisions of the
Land Reforms Act, the amount so found due became payable
out of the con1pensation awarde<l. to the proprietors and tenureholdcrs.
Ther~after the appeal before the High Court came
up for hearing. The appeltant contended that in view of the.
provisions of s.35 of the Land Reforn1s Act a civil c.:>urt must
1981
DecembeT 13.
19'1
Rojo Sail1n,ta
J(aa,_,. Bh,oj [)fo
••
X111JU1F J"lat K i.Jlulrt
usodNa o,10n su.1Ja
8.,,.., J.
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962J SUPP·
be deemed to have no jurisdiction to decide any question concerning claims under mortgages of tenures vested in the
Government under the Act. The High Cuurt rejected this
CJntcntion observing that the Act barred a suit by a mortgagee
only and not a suit by a mortgagor and confirmed the decree.
Held, that though the Act did not expressly bar a suit b}·
a mortgagor for redcmptiun, that was the practical and inevitable effect of it. The mongage accounts could not be taken
over again by the civil court "·hen they had been taken under
the Act and the decision in the proceedings under the Act had
become final.
Held, further, m the proceedings under the Act to ascertain the claim of a creditor, the debtor. was entitled to show
what had been paid to the creditor or what the creditor had
realised from the mortgaged property.
Held, alJO, that after a mortgagor had been divested of
the mortgaged property under
the Act
a
redemption
decree would be infructuous as the mortgagor would not then
be entitled to have it reconveycd to hirn.
4'\Jeithl:r would il
then be in the power of the mongagce tu cou \'Cy that property. In fact the mortgagor having been dive><ed of the
property and lost his right of redemption.
Qtury-Whether if the mortgagee had re•lised from the
profits of tile mortgage property more than wha1 wa> due
him on his mortgage, a suit by the mortgagor for refund
would lie?
CIVIL APPELLAT.t: JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 246 of U15ll.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
December 4, 1956; of the Patna High Court in First
Appeal No. 429 of 1951.
A. V. Vi8wanatha Saatri and Mohan Be/iari .Lal,
for the appellant.
B. K. P. SinJia and .4. G. Ratnaparkhi, for res·
pondent No. l.
M. K • .Rama'1ltl.rt!lv, R. K. Garg, JJ. P. Bffi,;/1
and S. C. Agarwal, for respondent No. 6.
1961, .December 13. Tho Judgment of tho
Court was delivered by
SARKAR, J.-This appe.&l ~out of a lllii
brought by the respondent Ku!X14r Jag11.t Kish.ore
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
121
Prasad Narayan Singh, hereafter called the respondent, against the appellant, the Raja of Kanika, for
redemption of certain mortgages.
The suit was
decreed by a learned Subordinate Judge of Gaya
and the High Court at Patna confirmed that decree
on appeal. The appellant has now appealed to this
Court against the judgment of the High Court.
In the High Court many points were argued
but in this Court Mr. Sastri for tho appellant press·
ed only one point. We have therefore to atate only
such of the facts as concern the point raised by .M:r.
Sastri.
The respondent claimed to be entitled to
redeem the mortgages as the oxecutor of the
estate of Chandreshwar Prasad, the mortgagor,
and
as
the receiver appointed
in
c~rtain
execution
proceedings
hereafter
mm1tioned.
It has since been finally held, as will appear later,
that the will appointing the respondent executor
was not genuine. It may also be stated that the
respondent is no longer holding the office of receiver. It would, therefore, appear that the respondent has now no locus standi to contest the appeal.
He was however, the only person opposing the
a ppea.l in this Court. As learned cou1rnel for the
appellant did not object to the respondent appearing in this appeal, it is unnecessary to discuss the
respondent's position further.
It appears that on February 17, 1924, Chandreshwar Prasad executed a mortgage in favour of
the then Raja of Kanika to secure a sum of
Rs. 4,00,000/-. The mortgaged properties consisted
of cert11in Mokarrari tenures. The mortg:tge debt
not having been paid, the ltaja of Kanika filed a
suit on the mortgage and obtained preliminary
and final decrees thereon. Thereafter he put the
dacree into execution sometime in 1938 and we are
informed that the execution case was never finally
disposed of. It was in these execution proceedings
1961
Roja Sailendra
Narayan Bhanj Deo
v.
Kumar Jagal Kishore
PrasadNaray~n Sinth
Sarkar J.
JllfJ
R· jo Saiknd1a
Nora; an Bbanj D,o
y,
Kumor Jagal KishO't
Pro•adlVtnOJOA Sinih
Sorlc• .'.
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
that the r&Jpondent had been appointed the receiver of the mortgaged properties.
The Moka.rrari tenures were held under the
Tika.ri Raj. The Tikari Raj had mortgaged its
proprietary iriterests in the~e and other tenures to
the Da.rbhanga Ra.j by way of a.
usufructuary
mortgage. Cbandreshwar Prasad appears to have
failed to pay the rent of the mortgaged and other
tenure8 which be held under the Tikari Raj. Thereupon, the Da.rbhanga. Raj as the usufructua.ry
motgagee of the proprietary interests in these tenures
started certificate proceedings for thfl realisation of
the rent and in or about 1940 obtained a certificate
for Rs. 83,2o7 /- in respect of arrears of rent. The
certificatti put the mortgage security of the Raja
of Kanika in jeopardy and the la.tter thereupon on
Seprember l!S, 1940, paid the a.mount of the certificate. In view of this payment, under s. 171 of
the Biha.r Tenancy Act the Haja of Ka.nika became
the mortgagee of the tenures in respect of the rent
of which the certificate had been issued
and
a!Ro entitled to possession of the tenure villages till
the amour.t paid by him in respect of the certificate
was repaid wiLh interest at the rate prescribed. On
November 23, 1940, the Rsja of Kanika took
possession of a.11 the tenures in respe<>t of the
arrears of rent of which the certificate had been
ia»utd. As a result, the receiver appointed in the
execution case was dispossessed.
The mortgagor Cha.ndreshwa.r Prasad died on
September 28, 1941.
Tho respond1mt as the
executor under a will alleged to have been left
by Cha.ndresbwar Prasad obtained probate of it
from tho High Court on December 10, 1945. He
was appointed receiver in the execution oaae on
February 17, 1949.
On September 20, 19!9, the . respondent ~
the re<:eiver and executor as a.fores&1d filed the IUl'
for the redemption of the &foresaid mortgll(Cea. B7
2S.C.R.
SUPREME] COUR'.l' REPORTS
123
this date, the Raja. of Ka.nika. in whose favour the
mortgage had been executed in 1924 had died
and
the
suit
was
brought
against
the
·appellant as his •uccessor and
as the person then entitled to
the mortgage's interest.
The respondent contended that the Raja of Kanika
had realised sufficient a.mounts from the tenures
of which he came into possession under s. 171 of
the BihaT Tenancy Act, to pay off both the mortgage• and had in fact realised more which he was
liable to repay. On March, 19, l!J51, the respondent
was removed from his office as receiver and thereafter.
on August 22, 1951, the High Court in a Letters
Patent Appeal set aside the grant of the probate,
holding the willto be a forgery. On the last mentioned date, a decree for redemption was passed
in the suit by the Subordinate Judge, directing the
accounts to be taken and giving other usual directions.
·
The appellant appeald from the judgment of the
learned Subordinate Judge to the High Court at Patna
some time in September 1951. While this appeal was
pending in the High Court, four daughters of
Chandreshwar Prasad were brought on the record
as representing the mortgagor's interest.
In the meantime, on September 25, 1950, the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 had come into force.
This Act provided that the State Government
might by notification declare that the estates or
tenures mentioned in it had passed to and become
vested in the State.
Sometime in 1952, a notifition was issued by the Bibar Government under
this Act vesting in the titate of Bibar the tenures
which bad come into the posf.'3ssion of tha Raja
of Kanika under s. 171 of the Bihar Tenancy
Act. As a result of this notification the ri1Zht, title
and interest of the mortgagor Chandreshwar Prasad
and of the superior owner in tenures vested absolutely in the state free from all encumbr<>nces and
1961
Raja ftJilendra
Norayan Bhanj Deo
v.
Kuma ... f agat Kishore
Prasad Narayan Singh
Sarkar .1.
'"'
R4j o Sa1ltnd1a
/!'I at'O)'~n BhQn) lJto
v.
Kumar J11gal A.iJhoit
ha.ta t-.· 019an S111gh
Sarkar J.
124 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) StJI>P.
the proprietor and tenure-holder ceased to have
any interest in them. In August l !J5:!, the State
of Bihar took posHession of these tenures from the
appellant who hacl till then
been in possession.
Thcre:ifter, the Mate of Bihar was made a party
to the appeal p1>nding in th<> High Court.
As required by s. 14 c,f the :Bihar Land Reforms Act, the appellant filed claims in respect of
his dues under his aforesaid mortgage decree and
the murtgage under s. l lf of the Bihar Tenancy Act
before the officer appointed under the first mentioned
Act.
The daughters of Chan<lreshwar Prasad were
made parties to the claim proceedings but they did
not appear to contest the claim. On January 15,
I !J53, the Claims Offic'lr decided that a sum of
its. 5,:J3,0i7 /- was due to the appellant in respect of
the mortgage of 1924 a sum of Rs. 25,034/4/- in reaped of tho mortagago created by the operation of
s. 171 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. No appeals had
been taken against these decisions of the Claims
Officer aa provided in the Land Reforms Aot and
they therefore became final under s. 18( 3) of that
Act.
The appellant's appeal to the High Court
which had been pending all this time, thereafter
came up for hearing and it was dismi.Bsed on December 4, l!l56.
It had been contended on bt·half of
the appellant that in view of s. 35 of the Land Reforms Act a civil court must be deemed to have
no jurisdiction to decide any question of mortgage
claims over tonur ~s vested in tho Government
under the Act.
The High Court w&1 unable to
accept this contention as iu its view what was barred by the Act WW! a suit by the mortgage.) only iond
observed that the Act did not contain any provision
barring a suit by the mortgagor. ln that view
of the matter the High Court confirmed the decree
of tho learned Subordinate Judge.
This appeal is
against this decision of the High Court.
We think that this appeal must be allow. It
is clear that a rc.,>demption dearee ca.u no more be
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
125
given effect to after the notification issued under
the Land Reforms Act, since thereafter the mort·
gaged tenures became vested in the State of Bihar
free from all encumbrances. The tenures having
vested in tht State of Bihar, the mortgagee had no
longer any interest in the tenures nor was he in
possession of them. He could not carry out the decree
by reconveying the tenures to the mortgagor or
put him into possession. The mortgage as a security
had ceased to exist, for the mortgaged properties
vested in the State of Bihar under the Act free
from all encumbrances. The mortgagor in his turn
also ceased to be entitled to the mortgaged pro·
perties. He had- hence no right to redeem them.
Therefore, in our view, the decree for redemption
which had been previously passed, became in·
fructuous.
But it was .said that if the mortgagee had
realised more out of the income of the mortgag11d
properties than was due to him, the mortgagor was
entitled to repayment of the excess realisation and
that,
therefore,
the
redemption
deeree
in
1961
Raja Saile,.dra
Nara.Jan· Bhanj Deo
..
Kumar Jagat KiJ·hore
P1asad J:laroyan .)ingh
Sar/car J.
so far as it directed the taking of accounts had not •.
bP.come infructuous. We are unable to accept this
contention in view of the provisions of the Land
Reforms Act to some of which we shall now
refer.
Under s. 4, upon the notification, all the
interests of proprietors and tenure-holders in estates and tenures mentioned in it came to an end and
vested in the State free from all encumbrances.
Clause (d) of this section p)'ovides that no suit will
lie in a· civil court for the recovery of moneys due
from the proprietor or tenure-holder on a mortgage
of the estate or tenure and all such suits and proceedings pending on the date of vesting will be
dropped. Section 14 provides that every creditor
whose debt is silcured by a mortgage of an estate
or tenure vested in the State may within the time
there prescribed notify his claim in writing to a Claims
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199'l) BUPP.
Officer f~ the purpose of detf'nnining the a.mount
Raj• Soilntdro
of the debt p&yahle to him. It would be clear from
N.,.,..~ Dro
this section 'lnd e. 4(d) e11rlier referred.to, tha.t a.
x._,.•.,.tJruho·• mortgagee could not recover tJie amount due to him
P·••oJN"'"-""' Sin1h from the mortgaged tenures which had vested in
.......
., ..
the Government except by following the procedure
laid down ins. 14. Section 14 also provides that
the Claim's Officer shall he a Suhordina.te Judge or
a ll~unsif depending on the amount of the claim.
Section 16 states the principles how the cla.im of
the creditors is to he a.soerta.ined. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the provision• of this section but it may be stated that . it gives power to
scale down tho interest. Section 17 provides for
appPals against the decisions of the Claims Officer to
a Roard one of whose memherR shall be a Judge of
the High court or a. District Judge, again dependin!!'
on tbP amount of the cla.im.
Sub-section (3) of
e. 18 provides that "Tiie decision of tho Hoard and
wkere no appeal has been filed to the Board, the
derision of the Claims Offirer shall bP final.'' S•ictions 14 to 18 are contained in Chapter 4 of the Act.
Chapter 5 of the Act dea.lH with tho Sll8e881llent of
compensation payable to tho diveRted proprietors or
tenure-holders. Section 24, which. is contained in
this chapta.r, deals with tne determination of the
am<lunt of compensation payable in respect of the
transftorence of the properties to the State.
Subsection ( 5) of this section provides that in a. case
where the interest of a proprietor or tenure-bolder is
subject tn a. mortgage, the compensation she.II first
be pa.ya.hie to the creditor and then to the proprietor
or tenure-holder, the &mount of compensa.tion pa.ya.bk to the creditor being the amount determined
under Ch. 4.
All compensation payable to the
proprietor, tenure-holder or encumbrancer is required
to be ee~ out in the compensation ABBessment-roll.
Section 35 of the Act states, "No suit iha.11 he
brought in ~ny.Civil Court in ro1pect of any entry in
or omil!llion from a Compensa.tion Assesmnent-roll
...
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
127
or in respect of any order passed under Cha pt.ers II
to VI or concerning any matter which is or has
already been the subject of any application made
or proceedings ta.ken under the said Chapters."
This section would make it impossible for the decision of the Claims Officer or the Board to be challenged in an ordinary civil proceeding. Section 32,
which is contained in Chapter 6 df the Act, provides
that when the Compensation Assessment-roll has
become final as prescribed in the Act, the Compensation Officer appointed under the Act shall proceed
to make payment in the manner specified in it. We
may also refer to s. 38 of the Act which otutes that
the Claims Officer and the Compensation Officer
shall have the p·owers of a Civil Court.
What is the effect of these provisions on the
redemption decree in so far as it directed the mortgage accounts to be taken ? It seems to us that they
rendered that part of the decree also infructuous.
In our view, the mortgage acc'ounts cannot b<1 taken
under the de.cree for they have already been taken
under the Act and the decision of the Claims Officer
on the State of the accounts is final under s. 18(3).
In view of s. 35, no suit can be brought concerning
the decision of the Claims Officer. It is true that the
suit in the present case had· been brought before
the Act and would not itself be affected by s. 35.
But we should ~uppose that the Act will now prevent
the account b8ing taken under the decree so as to
challenge the decision of tile Claims Officer. If this
were not so, the Officer taking the accounts under
the decree has to a·ccept the Claims Officer's decision
for that is final and the parties cannot challenge it.
That being so, the result would be that the officer
ta.king the accounts would have to make a .report
finding that the same amount which the Claims Officer
found to be due, was due to the mortgagee.
On
.this report a decree would follow and the appellant
would become entitled t.o the amount found due
1961
R11ja Sailendra
Narayan Bhanj Dea
v.
Kumar Jas:at Ki1hore
Prasad Na;ayan Sinzh
SarkarJ.
IP81
Roja 8oi1,,W•
N "''9"" B,,_; D,.
••
x-J"'°' Iris!..,,
p,.,.J J(...,.,. SV.1h
s-<lrar J.
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
to him under the decree.
Now. he was Plready
entitled to that amount under s. 82(1) of the Act.
He would then have a right to be pa.id the same
sum twice over in respect qf the same mortgage
right. We cannot conceive that such an anomalous
position could have been intended by the Act. We,
therefore think that since the Act, the redemption
decree cannot be given effect to.
The High Court seems to have thought that the
Officer taking the a.ccounts under the redemption de·
cree would not be bound by the decision of the Claims
Officer. This view wa.s ba.sed on the reason that only
such of the Claims Officer's decisions would be
binding as had been given in mntterR over which he
had jurisdiction and that he had no jurisdiction to
investigate into a claim by the mortga11:or in respect
of realisation by the mortgagee from the mortgaged
properties in excess of his dues. We think that in this
the High Court was in error. In taking the accounts
the Claim's Officer has to decide under s.16(2)(b) how
much had been paid to the mortgagee or realised
by him. It is therefore, wrong to say that the
Act did not give the Claims Officer jurisdiction to
go into the question of the realisation by the mortgagee. It is true, as the High Court pointed out,
that the Act does not expreBSly bar a suit by a
mortgagor fo~.redemption but that seems to be the
practical and inevitable effPct of it. Thie does not
affect the rights of a mortgagor. He can est11blieh
before the Claims Officer that the mortgagee had
realised out of the income of the mortgaged pro·
perties of which he was in possession JDOre than
what was legitimately d1;e to him. If he succeedii
in doing that tlie Claims Officrr wiH hold that noth·
ing is payable to the mortgagee ont of the compen·
sation. He may even indicate that the mortgages
has been overpaid to a certain extent. Whether
in such a oase the mo~tga.gor ~
file a suit ~o re·
cover from the mortgagee the amount paid in
exoeas is not a. question that a.rises in this appeal.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
129
Evan if he could, that would not lead to the conclusion that in the present case the mortgage accounts
c,111 be taken under the redtmption decree.
We
therefore, express no opinion on that question. We
think it right to point out that the Act has taken
sufficient care to see that neither the mortgagor nor
the mortgagee is in any way prejudiced in the proceedings concerning the investigation of the mortgdgee's claim. It has provided that the investigtt·
tion won Id be by experienced judicial officers of high
status and that the proceedings would be taken
as if they were taken in a Civil Court.
In the result, in our view, on the mortgage
security having vested in the State of Bihar free
from e1i::cumbrances under the Land reforms Act
the redemption decree passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge became infructuous. The decree
' could not stand any more ; the accounts directed to
I
be taken by it could no more be taken, nor the other
directions contained in it carried out. In o'tr view,
the High Court was in error in confirmmg the
decree.
The decree could no longer be acted upon.
•The claim proceedings under the Act finally determined the state of the mortgage accounts.
i
We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside
the· decree of the High Court and direct that the
respondent's suit for redemption be dismissed.
There will be no order for cost~.
Appeal allowed
1961
Ro_ia Sailendra
Noray;n Bhani Deo
v.
Kumar Jagat K;sho1'
Prasad Naro;'an Binti
·s ar /au J.