# SHANKAR PRAHLAD DESHPANDE & ORS v. SETH GENDALAL MOTILAL PATNI & ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 177
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-10-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2373 of 1966
- **Bench:** J.C. Shah, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shankar-prahlad-deshpande-ors-v-seth-gendalal-motilal-patni-ors-4897
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahdfs and
Alienated Lands) Act I of 1951, ss. 22, 13-Discharge of debt for nonsubmission of statement of claim-Fresh order under s. 22 by claims offi.
cer necessary where previous order to submit claim annulled by Baard of
Revenue.
A mortgagor applied to the Claim' Officer under s. 19 of the Madhya
Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates,
Mahals and Alienated
Lands) Act I of 1951 for determination of the debt due to the mortgagee
and for scaling down the debt. The mortgagee contended that the debt,
by adjudication of court, had been merged into a decree and there was no
secured debt which could be determined or scaled
down. The Claims
Officer held that there was a debt due to the mortgagee, that it was a secur.
ed debt and that he had jurisdiction for "determining the debt" and directed the mortgagee to submit a statement of the claim under s. 22 df the
Act. On appeal by the mortgagee, the Board of Revenue, following the
judgment of the High Court in Ramkishan v. Board of Revenue, Madhya
Pradesh, I.L.R. [1954] Nag. 430, held that the Claim Officer had no jurisdiction to decide whether the debt was a secured debt. Upon the High Court
overruling Ramkrishna's case in J~thalal Bhawanji v. Prabhakar
Sadosiv
I.LR. [1956] Nag. 147, the mortgagee field a statement of his claim before
the Claims Offic-.::r. The mortgagor contended that the debt stood discharged
under s. 22 of the Act as the mortgagee had failed to file a statement di
his claim as originally directed by the Claims Officer. The Claims Officer
upheld the contention.
The. Commiss!oner in appeal set aside the order
of the Oaims Officer discharging the debt and a petition in the High Court
against the Commissioner's order was summarily dismissed.
D~smissing
the appeal to this Court,
HELD : Section 22 enacts a penal p:-ovision and unless the conditions
precedent are satisfied, the debt could not by operation of the statute be
discharged.
In the present case the order of the Claims Officer was reversed by the
Board of Revenue, and all directions given by the Claims Officer, pursuant
to his order calling upon the mortgagee to file a statement of his c1aim,
stood annulled.
Thereafter the Claims Officer did not
pas.s any order
under s. 22 of the Act 1 df 1951 directing that the proceeding shall continue- and further directing that a notice shall issue calling upon the mortgagee to file a statement of the claim. Until a notice, valid in law, dire:tlng
that a statement be filed was •erved upon the mortgagee and he failed t<>
comply with it, the debt could not be discharged, [179 G-180 BJ

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
177
SHANKAR PRAHLAD DESHPANDE & ORS.
v.
SETH GENDALAL MOTILAL PATNI & ORS.
October 29, 1969
{J.C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahdfs and
Alienated Lands) Act I of 1951, ss. 22, 13-Discharge of debt for nonsubmission of statement of claim-Fresh order under s. 22 by claims offi.
cer necessary where previous order to submit claim annulled by Baard of
Revenue.
A mortgagor applied to the Claim' Officer under s. 19 of the Madhya
Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates,
Mahals and Alienated
Lands) Act I of 1951 for determination of the debt due to the mortgagee
and for scaling down the debt. The mortgagee contended that the debt,
by adjudication of court, had been merged into a decree and there was no
secured debt which could be determined or scaled
down. The Claims
Officer held that there was a debt due to the mortgagee, that it was a secur.
ed debt and that he had jurisdiction for "determining the debt" and directed the mortgagee to submit a statement of the claim under s. 22 df the
Act. On appeal by the mortgagee, the Board of Revenue, following the
judgment of the High Court in Ramkishan v. Board of Revenue, Madhya
Pradesh, I.L.R. [1954] Nag. 430, held that the Claim Officer had no jurisdiction to decide whether the debt was a secured debt. Upon the High Court
overruling Ramkrishna's case in J~thalal Bhawanji v. Prabhakar
Sadosiv
I.LR. [1956] Nag. 147, the mortgagee field a statement of his claim before
the Claims Offic-.::r. The mortgagor contended that the debt stood discharged
under s. 22 of the Act as the mortgagee had failed to file a statement di
his claim as originally directed by the Claims Officer. The Claims Officer
upheld the contention.
The. Commiss!oner in appeal set aside the order
of the Oaims Officer discharging the debt and a petition in the High Court
against the Commissioner's order was summarily dismissed.
D~smissing
the appeal to this Court,
HELD : Section 22 enacts a penal p:-ovision and unless the conditions
precedent are satisfied, the debt could not by operation of the statute be
discharged.
In the present case the order of the Claims Officer was reversed by the
Board of Revenue, and all directions given by the Claims Officer, pursuant
to his order calling upon the mortgagee to file a statement of his c1aim,
stood annulled.
Thereafter the Claims Officer did not
pas.s any order
under s. 22 of the Act 1 df 1951 directing that the proceeding shall continue- and further directing that a notice shall issue calling upon the mortgagee to file a statement of the claim. Until a notice, valid in law, dire:tlng
that a statement be filed was •erved upon the mortgagee and he failed t<>
comply with it, the debt could not be discharged, [179 G-180 BJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2373 of
1966,
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September. 1964
of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No. 471 of 1964.
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
C. B. Agarwala, G. L. Sanghi, P. N. Kukde and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6.
R. M. Hawrnavis a:nd A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for appellant No. 3.
S. T. Desai, M. S. Gupta and S. K. Dhingra, for respondent
No. 1.
N. S. Bindra and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J .-Gendalal-hereinafter called 'the mortgage' -filed
Suit No. 11 of 1939 for recovery of the amount due under a
deed of mortgage of proprietary rights in certain villages executed
in 1929 by Prahlad-father of the appellant. A preliminary
mortgage decree was passed declaring that Rs. 2,16,309/ 11/9
were due on the mortgage.
The decree was made absolute for
sale. The mortgage commenced in 1948 proceediilgs for executing the decree.
On .March 31, 1951, the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act 1 of
1951 was brought into force.
By virtue of s. 3 of that Act the
proprietary rights of holders of estates, mahals, alienated villages
and alienated lands stood vested in the State. Chapter IV of the
Act provided for "determination of debts".
The mortgagor
Prahlad applied on April 26, 1951 to the Claims Officer under
s. 19 of that Act for "determination of the debt" due to the
mortgagee and for scaling down the debt.
The mortgagee contended that the debt had, by adjudication of the .Court, been
merged into a decree and there was no "secured ~bt" which
could be determined or scaled down.
The Claims Officer held
that there was a debt due to the mortgagee, that it was a secured
debt, and that he had jurisdiction to "determine the debt".
On
November 19, 1951 the Claims Officer directed the mortgagee
to submit a statement of the claim under s. 22 of the Act.
Against the order of the Claims Officer, the mortgagee
appealed to the Board of Revenue.
Following the judgment of
the Nagpur High Court in Ramklshan v. Board of Revenue,
Madhya Pradesh (1), the Board of Revenue set aside the order
holding that the Claims Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the
question whether there was a secured debt,
and that the Civil
Court alone was competent to decide that question.
In the execution application filed by the mortgagee the Additional District Judge held that th.ere was a secured debt within
the meaning of s. 19 read with s. 17 ( 1 ) of the Act due to the
mortgagee under the mortgage, notwithstanding the decree passed
by the Civil Court.
(I) l.L.R [195'] N'.~. 430.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
S. P. DESHPANDE v. GENDALAL (Shah, /.)
179
On October 3, 1955, the High Court of Nagpur in Jethalal
Bhawanji v. Prabhakar Sadashiv(') overruled the Judgment in
Ramkrishna's case(2), and held that the Claims Officer had jurisdiction to decide whether a ·debt was a secured debt. The mortgagee then filed on January 23, 1958, a statement of his claim.
Oil March 26, 1958, the appellant-son of the original mortgagor
Prahla~ontended that the debt stood discharged because the
mortgagee had failed to file a statement of his claim as ordered
on November 19, 1951 by the Claims Officer.
By order dated
Decembe; 24, 1962 the Claims Officer· upheld the contention of
·the appellant.
Against that order the mortgagee preferred an
appeal to the Commissioner, Nagpur Division.
At the hearing
of the appeal, the appellant contended that the Commissioner
had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Commissioner rejected the contention of the appellant and set aside the order of the
Claims Officer discharging the debt.
A petition moved by the appellant in the High Court of
Bombay at Nagpur challenging the order passed by the Commissioner was summarily dismissed. Witli certificate granted by the
High Court, this appeal has been preferred.
Counsel contended that the mortgagee failed to file a statement of account pursuant to the order dated November 19, 1951
by the Claims Officer, and by virtue of s. 22 of the Madhya PraE
desh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated
Lands) Act I of 1951 the debt stood discharged. But the order.
of the Claims Officer holding that there was a secured debt was
set aside in appeal by the Board of Revenue.
Any proceeding
consequent upon that adjudication was, in view of the judgment
of the Board of Revenue, unauthorised.
That decision of the
F
Board of Revenue became final between the parties.
It cannot
be contended that because in another proceeding the High Court
of Nagp'!r expressed the view that the judgment on which the
Board of Revenue relied was erroneous, the direction of the
Claims Officer requiring the mortgagee to file his statement of
account was revived, and if the directions of the Claims Officer
G
wer.! not complied with, the debt due to the mortgagee was discharged.
The order of the Claims Officer was reversed by the
Board of Revenue, and all directions given by the Claims Officer,
pursuant to his order calling upori the mortgagee to file a statement of his claim, stood annulled. The Nagpur High Court in
Jethalal Bhawanji's case('), it is true, decided that the Claims
Officer was competent under s. 23 of M.P. Act 1 of 1951 to
H determine whether a debt is a secured debt. But the first order
of the Claims Officer was annulled by order of the Board of
(I) I.LR. [t9S6J Nag .. 147.
(2) 1.L.R. [1954) Nag. 480 .•
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] 3 S.C.R.
Revenue .. and thereafter that Officer did not pass any order under
s. 22 of Act 1 of 1951 directing that the pr~g shall continue, and further directing that a notice shall issue calling upon
the mortgagee to file a st!!_temeht of the claim.
Until a notice,
valid in Jaw, directing that a statement be filed was served upon
the mortgagee and he failed to comply with it, the debt could
not be discharged.
Section 22 enacts a penal provision and
unless the conditions precedent are satisfied, the debt could not
by operation of the statute be discharged).
The High Court was right in dismissing the petition. The
appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Y.P.
Appeal dismir.sed.
A
B
c