Before Akram, C. J.
MADAR CHANDRA GOLDAR– Appellant
versus
MANINDRA NATH GOLDAR and another – Respondents

A. F. A. D. No. 1490 of 1943, decide don 23rd June, 1949, from the order of the Additional Sub-Judge, Zillah, Khulna, dated 2nd June 1943.

Bengal Agricultural Debtors’ Act (VII of 1936), Ss. 20 and 45 – Decision by Debt Settlement Board – Jurisdiction of Civil Court to determine whether transaction creates liability – Civil Court must consider question from point of view of Act and evidence adduced before Board as well as surrounding circumstances.

A Civil Court has jurisdiction to determine whether or not an admitted transaction creates a liability, but the Civil Court has to consider the question fro, the point of view of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors’ Act in the evidence adduced before the Debt Settlement Board, and the surrounding circumstance sand except as otherwise provide by the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, the Board is untrammeled and unfettered by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act (vide section 45 of the Act) so that the materials which may exist before the Board may not be admissible before the Civil Court, while construing the document in question; consequently the Board may be able to decide a controversy by reference to evidence not admissible under the evidence Act and so not available to he Civil Court; the question must be decided with reference to the materials available to the Board and placed before it although they may be inadmissible before the Civil Court in view of the Evidence Act.

The Civil Courts were not justified after excluding some of the materials admissible before the Board on the ground that it was not admissible before itself, in arriving at the conclusion that the document in question was a conveyance and could not be treated as a mortgage creating a liability and in that view decreeing the suit.

Mati Lal Acharijec for Prafulla Kumar Chatterjee, for Appellant.

Anil Kumar Das Gupta for Manindra Nath Ghose, for Respondents.