Gujrathi Ramanna vs Parpati Venkatram Reddi and Others

In this case an interesting question of law as to the interpretation of Section 14, Hyderabad Debt Conciliation Act 1 of 1349F has arisen.

The facts briefly are that the ancestor of the Respondents, Gopal Reddi, was indebted to the Petitioner, who had obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs. 9,000. and odd against him. Gopal Reddi and others submitted a petition for the settlement of this decretal amount before the Debt Conciliation Board at Warangal. After some proceedings, the Conciliation Board passed orders on 29th Amardad 1353F as the parties had arrived at an agreement. The summary of the said order is to the effect that Rs. 3,000 had been paid by the judgment-debtors; that the rest of the amount to be paid was settled at Rs. 5,500; that the judgment-debtors were to pay the same by paying Rs. 1, 500 out of this on 15th Farwardi 1354F; and that the remaining Rs. 4,000 were to be paid in three equal instalments. It was agreed that an agreement was to be drawn up and registered after the said amount of Rs. 1,500 was paid on 15th Farwardi 1354F. It appears from the record of the Debt Conciliation Board that the said amount of Rs. 1,500 was paid on 12th Farwardi 1354F along with the necessary money for registration, etc.

It is also clear from the file that the agreement was not drawn up as required in Section 14. CI. (1) of the said Act. On 11th Khurdad 1354 F the creditor submitted a petition before the Talukdar of Warangal stating that though the Board had passed an order u/s 14, it had not prepared the agreement nor had got it registered, and prayed that the same may be done forthwith and the creditor was prepared to pay the registration fees. No order appears to have been passed on this petition. The file ultimately was sent back to the Debt Conciliation Board. When the file was received there, the creditor again submitted a petition on 17-2-1950, before the Board making the same prayer as was made before the Talukdar and stating that u/s 14 an agreement be drawn up and got registered. This petition was rejected on 29-1-1951. Against this order, the present petition had been submitted and we wish to treat the same as a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

We have gone through the order under consideration and we are not clear as to the reasoning adopted by the said Board. The Board seems to be of the opinion that some interpolation has been made in the original order, dated 29th Amardad 1353F and a word "suam" (third) instalment seems to have been added in that order. The Board is of the opinion that the interpolation was meant for purpose of saving limitation, and that the interpolation had made the order incapable of execution.

We have heard at length the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties, and we are of the opinion that this writ petition should be allowed. The question for decision is whether an agreement as laid down in Section 14 of the said Act has been drawn up or not. It it clear from the file and from the various petitions submitted by the parties, that after recording the order dated 29th Amardad 1353F. no further steps were taken by the Debt Conciliation Board. Under CI. (1) of Section 14, it is imperative upon the Board to reduce to writing in the form of an agreement the amicable settlement arrived at. between the parties. The Board has failed to carry out its statutory duties. u/s 14 when such an agreement is drawn up, certain entries are to be made in the agreement. That should be done in the light of the order, dated 29th Amardad 1353F. The agreement should contain description of movable and immovable property of the judgment-debtor as described in CI. (Alif) of the Section and should also contain the other details mentioned in Section 14(1). We direct that an agreement be drawn up accordingly and then the agreement be registered as laid down in CI. (3) of the said Section .

It was represented to us that while these proceedings were dragging on before the Board and before the Talukdar, the original debtor died and his sons have been brought on record. Shri Sadashiv Rao, the learned advocate for the said sons (legal representatives) drew our attention to this fact and raised a question as to how far it is possible for the agreement being drawn up against the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. We leave this question to be decided by the Board. We allow this writ petition, as above; and direct the Board to act accordingly. In view of the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.