{"id":219314,"date":"1964-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964"},"modified":"2018-09-27T14:28:24","modified_gmt":"2018-09-27T08:58:24","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1633, \t\t 1964 SCR (6) 903<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUKANCHAND AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/02\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR 1633\t\t  1964 SCR  (6) 903\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1970 SC 564\t (78)\n F\t    1972 SC1053\t (3,4)\n RF\t    1974 SC2009\t (23)\n RF\t    1980 SC1789\t (36)\n RF\t    1981 SC1744\t (23)\n D\t    1985 SC 257\t (12)\n RF\t    1986 SC1541\t (9)\n RF\t    1988 SC1136\t (10)\n R\t    1989 SC2105\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\nJagirdar's  Debt  Reduction Act (Rajasthan Act 9  of  1937)-\nMortgages decree against ex-Jagirdar-Whether  executable-ss.\n2(e) and 7(2) Validity of--Constitution of India, Art. 14.\n904\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRespondent  No.\t 1  obtained  a\t mortgage  decree  for\t Rs.\n1,14,581\/14\/6 against one Rao Raja Inder Singh (the judgment\ndebtor).   The\tmortgage  money\t was  advanced\tunder  three\nmortgages, and the mortgaged properties consisted of  Jagirs\nand some non-Jagir immovable property.\tThe latter  property\nwas  sold in execution and Rs. 33,750\/- paid to\t the  decree\nholder\tin  partial satisfaction of the\t decree.   Then\t the\ndecree\tholder filed an execution petition in the  Court  of\nthe   District\tJudge  for  the\t balance  amount  i.e.\t Rs.\n99,965\/3\/6,   praying  for  attachment\tof  the\t amount\t  of\ncompensation and rehabilitation grant which would be paid to\nthe  judgment debtor on account of resumption of his  Jagir.\nThe judgmment debtor submitted two applications in which  he\nclaimed relief under ss. 5 and 7 of the Rajasthan Jagirdars'\nDebt  Reduction\t Act.  The decree holder, in his  reply,  to\nthose  petitions  urged that the provisions relied  in\twere\nultra\tvires\tthe   Constitution  of\t India,\t  being\t  in\ncontravention  of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of  the  Constitution.\nThereafter the decree holder moved a petition under Art. 228\nof the Constitution before the High Court, praying that\t the\nexecution  case pending in the Court of the District  Judge,\nbe  withdrawn from that court to the High Court.   The\tHigh\nCourt transferred the case to its file.\t By its judgment the\nHigh  Court could held that apart from the later part of  s.\n2(e)  excluding certain debts and s. 7 (2) of the  Act,\t the\nrest  of  the  Act  was valid.\tThe  High  Court  granted  a\ncertificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution to\t the\nState  of Rajasthan to file an appeal to this Court.   Hence\nthe appeal:-\nHeld:-(i)  That the impugned part of s. 2(e) infringes\tArt.\n14  of\tthe Constitution for the reason that  no  reasonable\nclassification\tis disclosed for the purpose  of  sustaining\nthe  impugned part of s. 2(e).\tIt is now well-settled\tthat\nin order to pass the test of permissible classification, two\nconditions   must  be  fulfilled,  namely,  (1)\t  that\t the\nclassification\t must\tbe  founded   on   an\tintelligible\ndifferentiation\t which distinguishes persons or things\tthat\nare  to be put together from others left out of\t the  group,\nand   (2)  that\t the  differential  must  have\ta   rational\nrelationship  to  the object sought to be  achieved  by\t the\nstatute\t in  question.\tThe said condition No. 2  above\t has\nclearly not been satisfied in this case.  The object  sought\nto  be achieved by the-impugned Act was to reduce the  debts\nsecured on the Jagir lands which had been resumed under\t the\nprovisions  of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption  of\nJagirs\tAct.   The  fact  that\tthe  debts  are\t owed  to  a\nGovernment  or local authority or other bodies mentioned  in\nthe impugned part of s. (2) (e) has no rational relationship\nwith the object sought to be achieved by the Act.   Further,\nno intelligible principle underlies the exempted  categories\nof  debts.   The reason why a debt advanced on behalf  of  a\nperson by the Court of Wards is clubbed with a debt due to a\nState  or  a  scheduled bank and why a debt due\t to  a\tnon-\nscheduled  bank is not excluded from the purview of the\t Act\nis not discernible.\nManna Lal v. Collector of Jhalwar.<\/a> [1961] 2 S.C.R. 962, Nand\nRam  Chhotey Lai v. Kishore Raman Singh, A.I.R.\t (1962)\t All\n521 and\n 905\nJamnalal Ramlal Kimtee v. Kishendas and State of  Hyderabad,\nA.I.R. (1955) Hyd. 194, distinguished.\n(ii) Section   7(2)  is\t valid\tas  it\timposes\t  reasonable\nrestrictions,  in  the interests of general public.  on\t the\nrights\tof  a secured creditor.\t This sub-section  has\tbeen\ndesigned with the object of rehabilitating a Jagirdar  whose\nJagir  properties  have been taken over by the State  for  a\npublic\tpurpose at a low valuation.  If this  provision\t was\nnot made, the Jagirdar would find it diffcult to start\tlife\nafresh\tbecause\t his future income and\tacquired  properties\nwould  be liable to attachment and sale for the\t purpose  of\nsatisfying the demands of such creditors.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1961.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated February 18,\t1959
\nof  the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Misc.  Case No. 10  of
\n1959.\n<\/p>\n
S.   K. Kapur and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant.
\nThe respondent did not appear.\n<\/p>\n
February 26, 1964.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nSIKRI J.-This is an appeal directed against the judgment  of
\nthe Rajasthan High Court, which granted a certificate  under
\nArt. 133(1)(c).\n<\/p>\n
One Mukanchand, respondent No. 1 in this appeal (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the decree-holder) obtained a mortgage decree
\non  February  12, 1954, for Rs. 1,14,581-14-6,\twith  future
\ninterest at 6 per cent per annum, against one Rao Raja Inder
\nSingh  (hereinafter  referred to as  the  judgment–debtor).
\nThe  mortgage money was advanced under three mortgages,\t and
\nthe mortgaged properties consisted of 2 Jagirs and some non-
\njagir  immovable property.  The latter property was sold  in
\nexecution  and\tRs. 33,750\/- paid to  the  decree-holder  in
\npartial\t satisfaction of the decree.  On December 14,  1956,
\nthe  decree-holder filed an execution petition in the  Court
\nof the District Judge, Jodhpur, for Rs. 99,965-3-6,  praying
\nfor  attachment of the amount of compensation and  rehabili-
\ntation\tgrant which would be paid to the judgment debtor  on
\naccount\t  of  resumption  of  his  jagir.   This  case\t was
\nregistered
\n906<\/span>
\nas  Execution Case No. 12\/57.  On July 29, 1957,  the  judg-
\nment-debtor  made an application before the District  Judge,
\nJodhpur,  to the effect that the decretal amount  should  be
\nreduced in accordance with s. 5 of the Rajasthan  Jagirdars’
\nDebt Reduction Act (Rajasthan Act IX of 1957).\tOn July\t 31,
\n1957,  the  judgment-debtor  submitted\tanother\t application
\nclaiming that only half of his total jagir compensation\t and
\nrehabilitation grant money was liable to attachment under s.
\n7 of the said Act.  The decree-holder, in his reply to those
\npetitions,  urged that the provisions relied on\t were  ultra
\nvires  the Constitution of India being in  contravention  of
\nArts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
On  December  3, 1957, the decree-holder  filed\t a  petition
\nunder  Art.  228  of  the  Constitution,  praying  that\t the
\nexecution  case No. 12 of 1957, pending in the Court of\t the
\nDistrict Judge, Jodhpur, be withdrawn from that Court to the
\nRajasthan  High Court.\tThe High Court transferred the\tcase
\nto  its file, and thereafter issued notice to the  State  of
\nRajasthan, as the constitutionality of the said Act had been
\nchallenged.  By its judgment, the High Court held that apart
\nfrom  the  latter part of s. 2(e) excluding  certain  debts-
\nhereinafter referred to as the impugned part and s. 7(2)  of
\nthe  Act, the rest of the Act was valid.  The State  applied
\nfor  leave  to appeal to the Supreme Court, and so  did\t the
\ndecree-holder.\t On  the  certificates\tbeing  granted,\t two
\nappeals were filed in this Court.  The appeal of Mukhanchand
\n(Civil\tAppeal\tNo. 508\/61) was, by order  dated  April\t 23,
\n1962, of this Court, held to have abated.  Therefore, we are
\nnot  concerned with the validity of the other provisions  of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
Although the validity of the other provisions is not now  in
\nquestion, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions
\nof  the Act, because they have a bearing on the question  of
\nthe  validity of the impugned part of s. 2 (e) and s. 7\t (2)
\nof the Act; and these are reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Preamble-To  provide for the scaling down  of
\n\t      debts of jagirdars whose jagir lands have been
\n\t      resumed under the provisions of the  Rajasthan
\n\t      Land  Reforms  and Resumption of\tJagirs\tAct,
\n\t      1952…..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 907<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      S.    2(e)-“debt” means an advance in cash  or
\n\t      in kind and includes any transaction which  is
\n\t      in  substance a debt but does not\t include  an
\n\t      advance  as  aforesaid made on  or  after\t the
\n\t      first day of January. 1949 or a debt due to: –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   the Central Government or Government  of
\n\t      any State;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  a local authority;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) a scheduled bank;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)  a co-operative society; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (v)   a\twaqf,  trust  or  endowment  for   a
\n\t      charitable or religious purpose only; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vi)  a person, where the debt was advanced on
\n\t      his behalf by the Court of Wards…
\n\t      S. 3. Reduction of secured debt at the time of
\n\t      passing\tof   decree.-(1)    Nothwithstanding
\n\t      anything in any law, agreement or document, in
\n\t      any suit to which this Act applies relating to
\n\t      a\t secured  debt, the court shall,  after\t the
\n\t      amount  due has been ascertained,\t but  before
\n\t      passing  a  decree,  proceed  as\t hereinafter
\n\t      stated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)(a)  Where the mortgaged property  consists
\n\t      exclusively of jagir lands and such lands have
\n\t      been resumed under the provisions of the\tAct,
\n\t      the  court shall first ascertain\twhether\t the
\n\t      mortgagor\t had the right, under the jagir\t law
\n\t      in  force\t at the time the  mortgage-deed\t was
\n\t      executed,\t to  mortgage the  jagir  lands,  or
\n\t      failing that, whether specific permission\t for
\n\t      effecting\t the mortgage was obtained from\t the
\n\t      competent authority, and whether the  mortgage
\n\t      was   validly  subsisting\t on  the   date\t  of
\n\t      resumption of the jagir lands.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   if the mortgage was legally and properly
\n\t      made   and  was  validly\tsubsisting  on\t the
\n\t      aforesaid\t date,\tthe court shall\t reduce\t the
\n\t      amount  due  in accordance  with\tthe  formula
\n\t      given in Schedule 1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
908<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (3)   Where  the mortgaged  property  consists
\n\t      partly of jagir lands as aforesaid and  partly
\n\t      of  property other than such lands, the  court
\n\t      shall  after taking action in accordance\twith
\n\t      the provisions of subclause (a) of sub-section
\n\t      (2), proceed to distribute. the amount due  on
\n\t      the  two properties separately  in  accordance
\n\t      with the principles contained in section 82 of
\n\t      the  Transfer  of Property Act,  1882  (IV  of
\n\t      1882) as if they had been properties belonging
\n\t      separately to -two persons with separate:\t and
\n\t      distinct\trights of ownership; and  after\t the
\n\t      amount due has been so distributed, reduce the
\n\t      amount  due on the jagir lands  in  accordance
\n\t      with the formula given in Schedule 1.
\n\t      S.    4-Powers  to reduce secured\t debt  after
\n\t      passing of decree.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   Nothwithstanding anything in the Code of
\n\t      Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) or any other
\n\t      law, the court which passed a decree to  which
\n\t      this  Act applies relating to a  secured\tdebt
\n\t      shall,  on  the  application  either  of\t the
\n\t      decree-holder  or judgment-debtor, proceed  as
\n\t      hereinafter stated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Where  the\tmortgaged  property  charged
\n\t      under the decree consists exclusively of jagir
\n\t      lands  and such lands have been resumed  under
\n\t      the  provisions  of the Act, the\tcourt  shall
\n\t      reduce  the amount due in accordance with\t the
\n\t      formula given in Schedule 1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   Where  the\tmortgaged  property  charged
\n\t      under  the  decree consists  partly  of  jagir
\n\t      lands and partly of property other than  jagir
\n\t      lands,  the court shall determine\t the  amount
\n\t      due on\t     the first day of January, 1949,
\n\t      and distribute the same on the two  properties
\n\t      separately  in accordance with the  principles
\n\t      contained\t in  section 82 of the\tTransfer  of
\n\t      Property\tAct, 1882 (IV of 1882), as  if\tthey
\n\t      had  been properties belonging to two  persons
\n\t      with separate and distinct rights of ownership
\n\t      and after the
\n 909<\/span>
\n\t      amount due as respect the jagir lands has been
\n\t      so  calculated. reduce it in  accordance\twith
\n\t      the formula given in Schedule 1.
\n\t      S.    6-Satisfaction  of the decree-after\t the
\n\t      amount  due  has\tbeen reduced  under  and  in
\n\t      accordance  with the provisions of section  4,
\n\t      the  decree  shall,  to  the  extent  of\t the
\n\t      reduction\t so  effected, be  deemed,  for\t all
\n\t      purposes\tand on all occasions, to  have\tbeen
\n\t      duly satisfied.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      S.    7(2)-Notwithstanding  anything  in\t any
\n\t      law, the reduced amount found in the case of a
\n\t      mortgagor\t or judgment-debtor as the case\t may
\n\t      be,  under section 3 or section 4 as  respects
\n\t      mortgaged\t jagir\tlands shall not\t be  legally
\n\t      recoverable   otherwise\tthan  out   of\t the
\n\t      compensation and rehabilitation grant  payable
\n\t      to  such\tmortgagor  or  judgment\t debtor\t  in
\n\t      respect of such jagir lands.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We  may\t mention  that\trespondent No.\t1  has\tnot  entered
\nappearance  in\tthis  Court.  The learned  counsel  for\t the
\nState, Mr. S. K. Kapur, has urged that the High Court  erred
\nin holding that these two provisions, i.e. impugned part  of
\ns. 2(e) and s. 7(2), were void.\t Regarding the impugned part
\nof  s. 2(e), he contended that the debts mentioned  in\tsub-
\ncls. (i) to (vi) of s. 2(e) have been placed on a  different
\nfooting\t from  debts  due to other  creditors,\tbecause\t the
\nbodies and the authorities mentioned therein serve a  public
\npurpose\t or a public cause.  He urged that this\t provided  a
\nreasonable   basis  for\t differentiating   between   private
\ncreditors and creditors mentioned in cls. (i) to (vi) above.
\nRegarding  s.  7(2),  he urged that  it\t imposed  reasonable
\nrestrictions,  in  the interest of general  public,  on\t the
\ncreditors.\n<\/p>\n
Before examining the validity of the impugned provisions, it
\nis  necessary  to  examine the scheme of the  Act.   As\t the
\npreamble states in plain terms, the object of the Act is  to
\nscale  down debts of Jagirdars whose jagir lands  have\tbeen
\nresumed\t under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land  Reforms
\nand  Resumption of Jagirs Act.\tClause (e) of s.  2  defines
\n‘debt’\tto  mean  an  advance  in  cash\t or  in\t kind.\t The
\ndefinition  ,does not embrace dues of Government or a  local
\nauthority
\n910<\/span>
\nin respect of taxes, land revenue, etc.\t The definition then
\nexcludes  from the purview of the Act debts due\t to  Central
\nGovernment and other authorities and bodies mentioned in the
\nclause.\t  We shall advert to them later when discussing\t the
\nvalidity of this exclusion.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 3  provides  for  reduction  of  secured  debts  in
\naccordance with the formula given in Schedule 1 at the\ttime
\nof   passing  a\t decree,  and  their   apportionment   where
\nnecessary, between jagir and non-jagir property.  Section  4
\nprovides  for reduction of secured debts after a decree\t has
\nbeen  passed.\tSection 5 directs a court to  pass  a  fresh
\ndecree\tafter  reduction of the secured\t debts.\t  Section  6
\nprovides  that\tafter  reduction  of  the  secured  debt  in
\naccordance with the provisions of s. 4, the decree shall, to
\nthe  extent of the reduction so effected, be deemed for\t all
\npurposes  and on all occasions to have been duly  satisfied.
\nClause (1) of s. 7 provides for the execution of the  decree
\nagainst the compensation and rehabilitation grant payable in
\nrespect\t of the jagir lands of the judgment-debtor.   Clause
\n(2)  of s. 7, which has been struck down by the High  Court,
\nprohibits the recovery of the reduced amount with respect to
\njagir property from any property other than the compensation
\nand rehabilitation grant payable to a jagirdar.\t The  effect
\nof  this  provision  is that the  other\t properties  of\t the
\njagirdar,  existing or which ‘he may acquire hereafter,\t are
\nimmune\t from  being  proceeded\t against  in  execution\t  or
\notherwise.\n<\/p>\n
We  think that the High Court was right in holding that\t the
\nimpugned  part of s. 2(e) infringes Art. 14 of\tthe  Consti-
\ntution.\t  It is now well-settled that in order to  pass\t the
\ntest  of permissible classification, two conditions must  be
\nfulfilled,  namely,  (1)  that the  classification  must  be
\nfounded\t   on\tan   intelligible   differentiation    which
\ndistinguishes persons or things that are to be put  together
\nfrom  others  left  out\t of the\t group,\t and  (2)  that\t the
\ndifferentia must have a rational relationship to the  object
\nsought\tto be achieved by the statute in question.   In\t our
\nopinion,  condition  No.  2  above  has\t clearly  not\tbeen
\nsatisfied in this case.\t The object sought to be achieved by
\nthe  impugned Act was to reduce the debts secured  on  jagir
\nlands  which  had been resumed under the provisions  of\t the
\n‘Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of
\n 911<\/span>
\nJagirs\tAct.  The Jagirdar’s capacity to pay debts had\tbeen
\nreduced by the resumption of his lands and the object of the
\nAct  was  to ameliorate his condition.\tThe  fact  that\t the
\ndebts  are owed to a government or local authority or  other
\nbodies\tmentioned  in the impugned part of s.  2(e)  has  no
\nrational relationship with the object sought to be  achieved
\nby  the Act.  Further, no intelligible\tprinciple  underlies
\nthe  exempted  categories of debts.  The reason why  a\tdebt
\nadvanced  on  behalf of a person by the Court  of  Wards  is
\nclubbed\t with a debt due to a State or a scheduled bank\t and
\nwhy a debt due to a non-scheduled bank is not excluded\tfrom
\nthe purview of the Act is not discernible.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection, Mr. Kapur has relied on the decision  of
\nthis Court in Manna Lal vs.  Collector of Jhalwar<\/a> (1).\tThis
\ncase  is clearly distinguishable because there a law  giving
\nspecial facility for the recovery of dues to a bank owned by
\nthe  Government was held not to offend Art. 14 of  the\tCon-
\nstitution.    It  is  clear  that  the\tgovernment  can\t  be
\nlegitimately  put in a separate category for the purpose  of
\nlaying down the procedure for the recovery of its dues.\t Mr.
\nKapur  further relied on Nand Ram Chhotey Lal  vs.   Kishore
\nRaman Singh (2).  The judgment of the High Court undoubtedly
\nsupports him, but, with respect, we are unable to agree with
\nthe  ratio of the case.\t The High Court was concerned  with.
\nthe U.P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Act (U.P. Act XV of 1953),
\nwhich is substantially similar to the impugned Act The ratio
\nof the High Court is: “It appears to us that the legislature
\nhad  to\t make a distinction between debts due from  the\t ex-
\nzamindars  to  private\tindividuals and\t the  debts  due  to
\nscheduled   banks  or  to  Government\tor   semi-Government
\nauthorities.   The  obvious reason appears to  be  that\t the
\nprivate money-lenders were considered to be a bane to  rural
\neconomy and perpetrating agricultural indebtedness.  It\t was
\nto save the cultivators from such unscrupulous\tmoneylenders
\nthat  such laws had to be enacted, the last in series  being
\nthe  Zamindars Debt Reduction Act.” We consider there is  no
\nforce  in  these observations.\tNo such reason\tis  apparent
\nfrom the terms of the Act.  Non-scheduled banks
\n(1)  [1961] 2 S.C.R. 962.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  AIR (1962) All. 521.\n<\/p>\n
912<\/span><\/p>\n
and all other private creditors cannot be said to be a\tbane
\nto rural economy.\n<\/p>\n
The third case relied on by Mr. Kapur-Jamnalal Ramlal Kimtee
\nv. Kishendas and State of Hyderabad(1) does not contain\t any
\ndiscussion.   The High Court supported the exclusion on\t the
\nground that “exclusion of certain class of debts under s.  3
\nof  the\t impugned  Act\talso  is  not  without\t substantial
\njustification  for public demands do not stand in  the\tsame
\nposition as ordinary demands.” Apart from the fact that\t all
\nthe  exempted  categories are not public demands,  the\tHigh
\nCourt\tdoes  not  seem\t to  have  considered  whether\t the
\ndifferentia  had  any  rational relationship  sought  to  be
\nachieved by the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In conclusion, agreeing with the High Court, we hold that no
\nreasonable  classification is disclosed for the\t purpose  of
\nsustaining the impugned part of s. 2(e).\n<\/p>\n
Now,  coming to the question of the validity of s. 7(2),  we
\nconsider  that\tthis  sub-section is  valid  as\t it  imposes
\nreasonable restrictions, in the interest of general  public,
\non  the rights of a secured creditor.  A  secured  creditor,
\nwhen  he advanced money on the security of  jagir  property,
\nprimarily looked to that property for the realisation of his
\ndues.  Further, this sub-section has been designed with\t the
\nobject\tof rehabilitating a jagirdar whose jagir  properties
\nhave been taken over by the State for a public purpose at  a
\nlow valuation.\tIf this provision was not made, the jagirdar
\nwould  find  it difficult to start life afresh and  look  to
\nother  avocations,  for\t not  only  his\t existing  non-jagir
\nproperty but his future income and acquired properties would
\nbe liable to attachment\t and   sale  for  the\tpurpose\t  of
\nsatisfying\t    the demands of such\t secured  creditors.
\nAccordingly, we hold that s. 7(2)  imposes\t  reasonable
\nrestrictions in the interest of general public.
\nThe  appeal is accordingly partly accepted, the decision  of
\nthe High Court in regard to s. 2(e) is confirmed and that in
\nregard\tto s. 7(2) is reversed.\t As the respondent  was\t not
\nrepresented  and that appeal has only partly  succeeded,  we
\norder the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.
\nAppeal partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1)AIR-(1955) Hyd. 194.\n<\/p>\n
 913<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1633, 1964 SCR (6) 903 Author: S Sikri Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: MUKANCHAND AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/02\/1964 BENCH: SIKRI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-27T08:58:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-27T08:58:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2616,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-27T08:58:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-27T08:58:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964","datePublished":"1964-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-27T08:58:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964"},"wordCount":2616,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-27T08:58:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-mukanchand-and-others-on-26-february-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Mukanchand And Others on 26 February, 1964"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219314\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}