The appellant was entitled to the benefit of S. 19 (2) of the Act, read with S. 16 cl. (ii) of the amending Act.

Headnote:
MADRAS AGRICULTURISTS RELIEF ACT - SCALING DOWN OF DECRETAL DEBT - APPLICABILITY OF S. 19(2) OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION OF S. 16 OF THE AMENDING ACT - WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF UNDER S. 19(2) OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an agriculturist debtor, applied for scaling down of the decretal debt under S.19 (2) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (Mad. IV of 1938), as amended by the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Mad. XXIII of 1948). The High Court dismissed the application on the ground that the retrospective operation of S. 19 (2) was controlled by S. 16 of the amending Act and that cl. (ii) of S.16 applied and as the appellant whose appeal was pending at the commencement of the amending Act did not apply for scaling down before the decree was passed although he had the opportunity to do so, his application subsequent to the decree was barred by the principle of res judicata.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of S. 19 (2) of the Act, read with S. 16 cl. (ii) of the amending Act. The Court interpreted S. 16 of the amending Act and held that cl. (ii) applies to suits and proceedings instituted before the commencement of the amending Act, in which no decree or order has been passed, or in which the decree or order passed has not become final, before such commencement. The Court further held that the appellant's case fell under cl. (ii) of S. 16 and therefore he was entitled to the relief under S. 19 (2) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to apply for scaling down of his decretal debt under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Mad. IV of 1938), as amended by the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act (Mad. XXIII of 1948).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted S. 16 of the amending Act and held that cl. (ii) applies to suits and proceedings instituted before the commencement of the amending Act, in which no decree or order has been passed, or in which the decree or order passed has not become final, before such commencement. The Court further held that the appellant's case fell under cl. (ii) of S. 16 and therefore he was entitled to the relief under S. 19 (2) of the Act. The Court also held that the principle of res judicata did not apply in the present case as the appellant was entitled to the relief under S. 19 (2) of the Act notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed.

Judgement

S. K. DAS, J. : In this appeal, pursuant to special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras, the question for decision is Whether the appellant who claims to be an agriculturist debtor is entitled to apply for scaling down of his decretal debt under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Mad. IV of 1938), hereinafter called the Act, as amended by the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act (Mad. XXIII of 1948), hereinafter called the amending Act.

2. The facts which have led to this appeal are that a partnership firm, briefly described as M. Ar. Firm, whose partners were Arunachalam Chetty, his two sisters and Subramaniam Chetty, was carrying on the business of money lending. On the death of Arunachalam Chetty on 6-7-1916, Subramaniam Chetty, one of the surviving partners, took over the assets of the dissolved partnership firm at a valuation of Rs. 25,000 and carried on the business under the name and style of Pl. S. firm of which the partners were Subramaniam Chetty, Vellachi Achi, his two daughters and in 1919 Palaniappa, Chetty, father of the appellant, joined the partnership. The amount of Rs. 25,000 was credited in the accounts of the new partnership. On 19-4-1919, the accounts showed a balance of Rs, 16,369-12 as being due to the share of the decease Arunachalam Chetty which by the year 1935 swelled up to a figure of Rs. 55,933-15. Subramaniam Chetty died in 1924 and the business was carried on after his death by his widow Lakshmi Achi and her daughter and Palaniappa Chetty. In l930 Palaniappa Chetty died and his sons joined the business in his place. Disputes arose between the partners in 1935 which were referred to arbitration and under an award given on 31-7-1935, Arunachalam Chetty and his sister were directed to pay to the estate of M. Ar. Rs. 34,958- 11-6 and the defendants, now appellant and his brother, a sum of Rs. 20,975-3 and corresponding entries were made in the account books of PI. S, Firm. In 1944 the plaintiff, now respondent, as the adopted son of Arunachalam Chetty filed a suit for recovery of the amount which the award had directed the defendants to pay. The defendants were the two sons of Palaniappa Chetty. They denied the adoption of the respondent to Arunachalam Chetty and also pleaded the bar of limitation.

3. The trial Court held the adoption to be invalid and upheld the plea of limitation. The plaintiff took an appeal to the High Court which held the adoption to be valid and also held the suit to be within limitation. It remitted the case to the trial Court for determining certain issues and after the findings were received, the suit was decreed on 9-3-1951, for a sum of Rs. 26,839-15-9. The appellant applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court and also applied for stay. Leave was granted but stay was refused; as no security was furnished under the rules, the High Court later revoked the certificate granting leave.

4. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the Act of 1938 was amended by the amending Act by which new reliefs were given to agriculturist debtors. On 5-10-1951, the appellant made an application to the trial Court for scaling down the decretal debt under S.19 (2) of the Act which was added by the amending Act. The trial Court held that the decree could be scaled down under S.19 (2) of the Act, but it had no jurisdiction to grant that relief as the decree sought to be scaled down had been passed by the High Court. Against this order the appellant took an appeal to the High Court on 4-7-1952, and also made a separate application in the High Court for scaling down the decretal debt under S. 19 (2) of the Act. The High Court dismissed the application on 25-3-1953. The appellant then applied for leave to appeal under Art.133 of the Constitution but this was refused on 6-10-1953, and this Court granted special leave on 19-4-1954.

5. The ground on which the High Court refused relief tinder S. 19 (2) of the Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document