Sachirani Biswas v. Nagendra Nath Nath Opposite Party.

1. This Rule has been obtained by the Defendant and is directed against an order of the Munsif refusing to slay a suit on receipt of a notice under sec,. 34 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The suit is one for a declaration of the Plaintiff's title and recovery of possession. The title is based upon an alleged sale by the Petitioner.

2. The main defence of the Petitioner is that the transaction was really a mortgage.

3. Of course if it was a mortgage there is a debt and the Petitioner has approached a Debt Settlement Board for settlement of this debt.

4. Before the jurisdiction of the ordinary Court is excluded, there must be something definite to this effect. I have not been able to find anything in the Act which would prevent the Court from deciding whether the Plaintiff has title to the disputed land and ought to be put in possession of it.

5. Mr. De relied upon secs. 33 and 34. Sec. 34 prevents the Court from proceeding with any suit in respect of a debt which is before the Board. The present suit has nothing whatever to do with any debt. The Plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of certain property and he admits that the Petitioner does not owe him anything. A notice issued by the Board under sec. 34 will therefore not prevent the Court from trying this suit.

6. There remains sec. 33 which bars certain proceedings in a Civil Court. Here again the proceedings barred are proceedings in connection with debts. The present suit is not a suit in connection with any debt and there is no-thing in sec. 33 which bars the Court from proceeding to try it.

7. Sec. 20, as amended, does not carry the matter any further. There is no question in the present suit whether any liability is a debt or not.

8. The Rule is discharged with costs— hearing-fee, one gold mohur.

C.C