Swaran Vs. Prescribed Authority

Swaran vs Prescribed Authority

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Mar 01, 1994

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/629529

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/629529
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: G.R. Majithia and; V.K. Jhanji, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 01, 1994
Case Number: C.W.P. No. 2796 of 1994
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- HINDU LAW -- Custom: [Vijender Jain, C.J., M.M. Kumar, Jasbir Singh, Rajive Bhalla & Rajesh Bindal, JJ] Alienation of ancestral property - Punjab and Haryana - Held, In respect of State of Punjab by virtue of Punjab Amendment Act, 1973 there is a complete bar to contest any alienation of ancestral or non-ancestra...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 - Sections 8A(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Swaran

Advocate Prem Chand Chaudhary, Adv.

Respondent

Prescribed Authority

Legal References

Acts: Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 - Sections 8A(1)
Reported In: (1994)107PLR471

Excerpt

.....contest such alienation. it was, therefore, felt necessary to engraft certain restriction on degrees of collateral, eligible to contest an alienation, which under the custom itself was not limited. accordingly, the punjab custom (power to contest) act, 1920 (act no.2 of 1920) was enacted. the hindu succession act was extended to the state of punjab. act 2 of punjab act defined expression alienation to include any testamentary disposition of property and appointment of an heir was to include any adoption made or purporting to be made according to custom. a further provision was made by section 3 that hindu succession act was to apply only in respect of alienation of immovable property or appointment of heirs made by persons who in regard to such alienation or appointment were governed by custom. whereas section 4 declared that hindu succession act was not to affect any right to contest any alienation or appointment of an heir made before the date on which the succession act was to come into force. in other words, act, no.2 of 1920 was not to affect alienation or appointments of heir made before date on which it came into force. it also preserved the rights of any alienation or appointment of an heir made by a family. after section 7 was inserted in act of 1920 by the punjab amendment act of 1973 right of contest being contrary to custom had been totally effaced and taken away. therefore, no person has any right to contest any alienation of immovable property whether ancestral or non-ancestral on ground of being contrary to custom after january 23, 1973. in haryana, the situation as enunciated by act no.2 of 1920 continued to prevail in respect of alienation because no reforms parallel to punjab as brought by amendment act of 1973, had been enacted although right to pre-emption has been substantially abolished in haryana also. no steps even have been taken in that regard. therefore, situation in haryana have to be regarded as it existed under act no. 2 of..........with the bank regarding repayment of loan and also mortgaged his land with the bank. after the death of shri bakhtawar singh, the respondents are his legal heirs and are bound to return the amount of loan. the respondents have not brought any such fact on the record from which it can be inferred as to which legal heirs of deceased shri bakhtawar singh except the respondents have been left and not impleaded as parties m this case. hence, this application is, therefore, maintainable. the loan amount was advanced in the year 1987 and since then only rs. 5000/- has been returned by the respondents to the applicant bank. the respondents have not returned the fixed instalments as per schedule regularly to the applicant bank. hence, as per terms and conditions of mortgage deed, if the respondents do not return the loan amount along with interest to the applicant bank in fixed instalments as per schedule regularly, the applicant bank has the right to recover the entire amount of loan alongwith interest- hence considering all the aforesaid facts, the suit of the applicant bank is decreed against the respondents and it is ordered that the loan amount along with interest, which will be upto the date of payment in accordance with law, be recovered by auctioning the land of the respondents mortgaged with the bank.'3. the learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the correctness of the finding arrived at by the prescribed authority. he only says that before taking action under section 8-a(1) of the act, the bank did not issue any notice to the petitioners. this plea was not raised by the petitioners before the prescribed authority. moreover, issuance of the notice is immaterial as on receipt of the application under section 8-a(1) of the act, the prescribed authority issued notice to the petitioners and after giving them i full opportunity allowed the application.4. for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the writ petition. the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

G.R. Majithia and V.K. Jhanji, JJ.

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated January 25, 1994 passed on a petition filed by the Punjab National Bank, Bilaspur Branch, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar Under Section 8-A(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Bakhtawar Singh, resident of village Sandhaya, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, took a loan of Rs. 24,000/- for a tube-well from the Punjab National Bank, Bilaspur Branch on April 11, 1987. He executed mortgage deed mortgaging his agricultural land for re-payment of the loan and interest thereon. He did not pay the loan amount within the scheduled period in regular instalments and as per the account statement, he had deposited only Rs. 5,000/- on August 29, 1990 with the Bank. The remaining instalments remained unpaid. A sum of Rs. 43,908.53 is outstanding against the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, which includes interest upto March 31, 1993. The Punjab National Bank initiated proceedings Under Section 8-A(1) of the Act against the petitioners. The petitioners were given notice of the application and were afforded full opportunity to lead their defence and after recording the evidence, the Prescribed Authority came to the following conclusion:-

' I have carefully perused the case file and have also heard arguments of counsel of both the parties carefully. The loan amount was advanced to father/husband of the respondents in the month of April, 1987 and he had entered into an agreement with the Bank regarding repayment of loan and also mortgaged his land with the Bank. After the death of Shri Bakhtawar Singh, the respondents are his legal heirs and are bound to return the amount of loan. The respondents have not brought any such fact on the record from which it can be inferred as to which legal heirs of deceased Shri Bakhtawar Singh except the respondents have been left and not impleaded as parties m this case. Hence, this application is, therefore, maintainable. The loan amount was advanced in the year 1987 and since then only Rs. 5000/- has been returned by the respondents to the applicant Bank. The respondents have not returned the fixed instalments as per schedule regularly to the applicant Bank. Hence, as per terms and conditions of mortgage deed, if the respondents do not return the loan amount along with interest to the applicant Bank in fixed instalments as per schedule regularly, the applicant Bank has the right to recover the entire amount of loan alongwith interest- Hence considering all the aforesaid facts, the suit of the applicant Bank is decreed against the respondents and it is ordered that the loan amount along with interest, which will be upto the date of payment in accordance with law, be recovered by auctioning the land of the respondents mortgaged with the Bank.'

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the correctness of the finding arrived at by the Prescribed Authority. He only says that before taking action Under Section 8-A(1) of the Act, the Bank did not issue any notice to the petitioners. This plea was not raised by the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority. Moreover, issuance of the notice is immaterial as on receipt of the application Under Section 8-A(1) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority issued notice to the petitioners and after giving them I full opportunity allowed the application.

4. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the writ Petition. The same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 1994 Same Parties Swaran vs Prescribed Authority Same Subject Civil Same Judge G.R. Majithia and; V.K. Jhanji, JJ. Acts & Sections Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Prov...

Civil