Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1065 (MP)

Ratam Lal v. Dy. Director of Mandi

2011-09-07

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J. 1. This appeal under Section of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the Appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 9th December 1997 in Civil Appeal No. 73 A/96, whereby the judgment and decree dated 1st July 1996 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 5 A/92 was affirmed. 2. Present appeal was admitted for hearing by this Court vide its order dated 17th April 1998 and at the time of admission of the appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed : 1. Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the present suit is barred under Section 66 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam when admittedly the RRC is issued for recovery of the dues of agriculturists? 2. Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the suit is not properly valued when as per plaint allegation the Plaintiff has 1/2 share in the house under attachment and the value of this share is Rs. 12,000/-? 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the Appellant's brother Manak Lal was doing business in the name and style of M/s. Mahaveer Trading Company as its sole Proprietor. In the course of his business, he had made certain purchases from the farmers and as he could not pay the payment against purchases due to the farmers, the Agricultural Marketing Committee initiated recovery proceedings against him and issued Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) for an amount of Rs. 19,64,409/- against him. This payment outstanding to the farmers from the Appellant's brother Manak Lal was sought to be realised by sale of property bearing House No. 54/2, Bhagat Singh Path, Barnagar, District Ujjain jointly owned by the Appellant and his brother Manak Lal in equal shares. There was a tripartite agreement between the Appellant, his brother Manak Lal and the farmers through the Agricultural Marketing Committee dated 30th March 1991, whereby the Appellant had mortgaged his 1/2 share in the aforementioned property in favour of the marketing committee to secure the repayment of dues that may be outstanding to the formers. There was a tripartite agreement between the Appellant, his brother Manak Lal and the farmers through the Agricultural Marketing Committee dated 30th March 1991, whereby the Appellant had mortgaged his 1/2 share in the aforementioned property in favour of the marketing committee to secure the repayment of dues that may be outstanding to the formers. The Appellant in order to avoid his liability under the tripartite agreement dated 30th March 1991 filed a Civil Suit No. 5A/92 for declaration and permanent injunction and prayed for declaration that agreement dated 30th March 1991 was not binding on him as he has nothing to do with the liability of his brother Manak Lal. The suit filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 1st July 1996 at preliminary stage on the ground of improper valuation and for want of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the Appellant preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 73A/96, which has also been dismissed by the first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 9th December, 1997. The Appellant still being not satisfied with the decree of the first appellate court has filed the present second appeal, which has been heard today. 4. Shri Sumit Samvatsar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has argued that the impugned judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from infirmity as according to him his suit could not have been dismissed without giving him an opportunity to lead evidence in the matter. The contention of Shri Samvatsar is that since he had challenged the agreement dated 30th March 1991 in his suit and had prayed for a declaration that the said agreement was not binding on him, the bar of jurisdiction of civil court contained in Section 66 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam of 1972) was not applicable. 5. 5. On the other hand, Shri Pramod Mitha, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents has argued in support of the reasonings given by the courts below in the impugned judgment and decree and has contended that this appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs as according to him, the Appellant under the garb of civil suit for declaration and injunction wanted to avoid his liability under the agreement dated 30th March 1991, according to which the Agricultural Marketing Committee was entitled to appropriate his 1/2 share in the property in question for realisation of amount due under RRC to the tune of Rs. 19,64,409/-. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the above rival arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties but I am sorry I have not been able to pursuade myself to agree with the submission made on behalf of the Appellant. 7. The Appellant does not dispute the genuineness of the agreement dated 30th March 1991, which was a tripartite agreement executed between him, his brother Manaklal and the farmers through Agricultural Marketing Committee, whereby the Appellant had agreed that the Agricultural Marketing Committee can proceed to appropriate his 1/2 share also in property bearing House No. 54/2 Bhagat Singh Path, Barnagar, District Ujjain jointly owned by him and his brother Manak Lal in the event his brother Manak Lal fails to make payment of the farmers due to them. As the Appellant's brother Manak Lal doing business in the name and style of M/s Mahaveer Trading Company as its sole Proprietor had failed to make payment of the farmers, a recovery certificate to the tune of Rs. 19,64,409/- was issued by the Agricultural Marketing Committee. Section 61(3) of the Adhiniyam of 1972 provides that any person who is aggrieved by the revenue certificate issued by the Agricultural Marketing Committee can challenge the same by filing an appeal to the Managing Director within 30 days of the date of communication of the notice of recovery certificate to him and the order in appeal passed by the Managing Director shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. Section 66 of the Adhiniyam of 1972 completely bars the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of any action taken by the Agricultural Marketing Committee in good faith. Section 66 of the Adhiniyam of 1972 completely bars the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of any action taken by the Agricultural Marketing Committee in good faith. Since the Appellant does not dispute the genuineness of the agreement dated 30th March 1998, whereby he had agreed to make his undivided 1/2 share also available for realisation of dues of the farmers, it appears that he had filed the suit for declaration only to avoid his liability under the recovery certificate issued by the Agricultural Marketing Committee. In fact, the relief claimed by the Appellant in his suit is covered by the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1972. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment and decree of the two courts below dismissing the suit of the Appellant for want of jurisdiction in view of provisions contained in Section 66 of the Adhiniyam of 1972. Hence, this appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. The parties are left to bear their own costs.