SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
K. Hutchi Gowder, Appellant
Versus
Ricobdos Pataimull and Co., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s. V. Ratnam and R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Advocate with him), for Respondent.
DEBT RELIEF - MADRAS AGRICULTURISTS RELIEF ACT, 1938 - S. 13 - SCALING DOWN OF DEBTS - DECREE OBTAINED IN SUIT TO ENFORCE DEBT INCURRED AFTER ACT - WHETHER SCALABLE DOWN.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant and 4 others executed a mortgage deed in favor of Kaverlal Chordia for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable after three years with interest at 9% per annum. The mortgagee assigned the mortgage to the respondent. Certain payments were made. The assignee-mortgagee filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,98,487-8-0. The suit ended in a compromise decree for Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of principal, with interest and further interest at 9% per annum and cost. Appellant filed an application for scaling down the debt under S. 13 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. The Subordinate Judge scaled down the decree debt. On appeal, the High Court set aside the order and dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The decree obtained in a suit to enforce a debt incurred after the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (Act 4 of 1938) came into force could not be scaled down under S.13 of the Act.
Issues: Whether a decree obtained in a suit to enforce a debt incurred after the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (Act 4 of 1938) came into force could be scaled down under S.13 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. S. 13 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 provides for the scaling down of debts incurred by agriculturists after the commencement of the Act. 2. S. 19 of the Act provides the machinery for scaling down decrees made in respect of debts incurred before the Act. 3. The Act does not provide for the reopening of decrees made in respect of debts incurred after it came into force. 4. The relief in respect of such decrees is specifically confined only to a concession in the rate of interest.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. :
This appeal by certificate raises the question whether a decree obtained in a suit to enforce a debt incurred after the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (Act 4 of 1938), hereinafter called the Parent Act came into force could be scaled down under S.13 of the Parent Act.
2. The facts are as follows : On February 15, 1945, the appellant and 4 others executed a mortgage deed in favour of Kaverlal Chordia for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable after three years with interest at 9 per cent per annum. On January 24, 1946, the mortgagee assigned the said mortgage in favour of the respondent. Certain payments towards principal and interest were made thereunder. On February 28, 1950. the assignee-mortgagee i.e., the respondent, filed a suit, O. S. No. 55 of 1950, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris, Ootacamund, for the recovery of Rs. 1,98,487-8-0, made up of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the balance of the principal and Rs. 48,487-8-0 for interest due on the mortgage. The suit ended in a compromise dated December 21, 1950, under which a decree was passed for Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of principal, with interest and further interest at 9 per cent per annum and cost, subject to some concessions being shown in the event of payments being made in certain specified instalments. Thereafter, certain payments were made towards the decree. In due course the respondent filed I. A. No. 382 of 1953 for the passing of a final decree. On June 24, 1955, the appellant filed O. P. No. 24 of 1955 for scaling down the debt. The respondent, inter alia, contended in his objections filed against the said application that as the debt sought to be scaled down was incurred subsequent to March 22, 1938, which is the date of the commencement of the Parent Act, the decree could not be scaled down under S. 19(2) of the Parent Act. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objection and held by his order dated August 10, 1956, that the decree was liable to be scaled down in terms of S. 13 of the Parent Act. He accordingly scaled down the decree debt. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that as the statutory right to have the interest scaled down was not put forward before the consent decree was passed the decree could not be scaled down at the stage of the final decree proceedings. It further held that S. 19(2) of the Parent Act only applied to debts payable at commencement of the said Act and, therefore, the application for scaling down the decree was not maintainable. In the result it set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the petition for scaling down the debt. Hence the present appeal.
3. Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, learned counsel for the appellant, did not press the appellant s claim under S. 19 (2) of the Parent Act but put it under S. 13 of the said Act. He took us through the relevant provisions of the Parent Act, which according to him disclose the legislative policy undermining the sacrosanctity of decrees and pressed on us to hold, on a scrutiny of the provisions of S. 13 of the Parent Act in the light of the said policy, that the decree made in respect of a debt incurred after the Parent Act came into force was liable to be scaled down thereunder.
4. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent, makes a distinction between the substantive and procedural provision and contends that the present Act does not make any provision for scaling down decrees made in respect of debts incurred after the said Act came into force. The general scheme of the Parent Act gathered therefrom may be briefly stated thus. The main object of the Parent Act was to give relief to agriculturists. "Debt" has been defined in S. 3 (iii) of the Parent Act as any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from an agriculturist, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise. This definition is rather comprehensive: it takes in secured, unsecured and decree debt
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.