Bansidhar Dhar and Others vs Tikait Harnarayan Singh and Others

Coutts, J.—This was a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 566.2 0 principal and Rs. 393 interest on a bahikhata transaction, which is said to have been jointly entered into with the plaintiffs by the defendant No. 1 and the deceased father of the defendants NOS. 2 and 3, who are minors. After the suit was instituted, the estate of the defendant No. 1 was taken under the management of the Encumbered Estates. The plaintiff then brought the manager on to the record. The manager objected on behalf of himself and the defendant No. 1 under the provisions of Section 3 of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act; and on this objection being disallowed, he did not enter any defence. The suit was decreed ex parte. Against this decree the defendant No. 4, the manager of the Encumbered Estates appealed on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and himself. The learned Judicial Commissioner has found that Section 3 was a bar and has decreed the appeal.

Section 3 is to the effect that:

On the publication of an order u/s 2, the following consequences shall ensue:

All proceedings which may then be pending in any Civil Court in British India or in any Revenue Court in Bengal in respect to such debt or liabilities, shall be barred.

The debts and liabilities referred to are debts, and liabilities mentioned in session 2A(i)(a):

All debts and liabilities to which the said holder is subject.

Clearly then the suit which was brought by these plaintiffs was barred by the provisions of Section 3.

It has been contended, however, that the plaintiffs are saved by Section 21-B. Section 21-B runs as follows:

During the period of management in every pending suit or appeal in which the holder is plaintiff or defendant, the manager shall be named as the representative of the holder for the purposes of the suit or appeal.

Clearly, however, Section 21 B cannot restrict the provisions of Section 3; this section refers to suits other than proceedings in regard to the debts or liabilities referred to in Section 2-A.

The view of the law which has been taken by the learned Judicial Commissioner is obviously correct and I would dismiss this appeal with costs.

Macpherson, J.

I agree.