Gauri Kumari Devi vs Babu Krishna Prasad And Ors. on 29 September, 1967
Judged in this light, I think the decision of this Court in the case of Raghubir Saran Rastogi v. Kaviraj Basudevanand 1953 B.L.J.R 563 is right and furnishes complete answer to the contention raised by Mr. Sahay, and any other decision which is contrary to the construction I have put upon Section 6 and to the ruling in that case, in my opinion is not correct;....Mr. Baldeo Sahay (for the appellant in that case) relied on Gauri Kumari Devi v. Krishna Prasad 1957 B.L.J.R 201 but he did not question the correctness of the decision in Raghubir Saran Rastogi v. Kaviraj Basudevanand 1953 B.L.J.R 563. He however, pointed out that the learned Judges, who decided the case of Gauri Kumari Devi had distinguished the decision in the case of Raghubir Saran Rastogi, but the Full Bench took the view that there was no valid ground of distinction between the case of Raghubir Saran Rastogi and that of Gauri Kumari Devi. Mr. Lal Narain Sinha had further contended in that case that there was no reason to hold that the principal underlying substituted security should be excluded from consideration while dealing with the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and according to him, Section 42B of that Act was no bar to the application of that principle and the said Act should be held to contemplate the doctrine of substituted security. Their Lordships dealt with this contention and after referring to various provisions of that Act held that a mortgagee was, no doubt, entitled to recover his money out of the compensation, but the Act did not compel him to recover the money by that procedure alone and he was not deprived of his normal remedy to recover his debt.