Ram Adhar Pathak vs Indradeo Singh

Bomford, J.M.

(August 12, 1937). The facts are simple and admitted. The Respondent bought a zamindari and the Appellant filed a pre-emption suit. The latter paid down Rs. 20,000 and took possession but the Respondent won on appeal to the High Court and recovered possession of the property without paying the money that he owed the Appellant. The latter applied u/s 144 and as the money was not forthcoming the Court ordered sale of the property. The Respondent then applied under the Encumbered Estates Act and it must be said that as far as one can see the application was a genuine application and not intended to defeat this debt alone. After some delay the Respondent applied for the sale proceedings u/s 144 to be stayed and the Collector ordered stay u/s 7 of the Act. The Appellant claims that proceedings should not be stayed because debt under the Act means a debt based on a contract between the parties and not on the order of a Court. I agree with the Collector in thinking that as defined in the Act debt means any pecuniary liability and there is no doubt that the Respondent has to pay the Appellant Rs. 20,000 and that sum is part of his debts. The appeal is dismissed with costs and I think the Respondent is entitled to his costs and Rs. 10 pleader''s fee.

Darling S.M.

(August 19, 1937)

I agree.