Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This appeal on certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is directed against its judgment dated April 6. 1955, dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 656 of 1950. The High Court held that the respondents were agriculturists within the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (called for brevity "the Act") and were entitled to a scaling down of the decree in O. S. No. 52 of 1941, dated August 27, 1945. The decree-holders are the appellants before us. We will now give the Facts relevant to the present appeal.

2. The respondents were members of an undivided Hindu family and the following genealogy is useful in following the facts :

Narasimha Rao had taken loans on promissory notes from the ancestors of the present appellants, and a suit was filed for Rs. 50,000 odd in 1941 against the family. That suit was O. S. No. 52 of 1941. In that suit, an application was made by the respondents claiming to be agriculturists, for the scaling down of the amount. The plaintiffs in the case denied that the defendants were agriculturists. The suit, however, ended in a compromise decree for Rs. 37,000 on August 23, 1945, as against the claim for Rs. 50,964-1-9. It appears that some payments were also made towards this decretal amount. On February 21, l949, the judgment-debtors made another application in the suit (Interim Application No. 279 of 1949) for scaling down the decretal amount on the ground that they were agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the Act, as amended in 1948. The decree-holders have raised three defences, (i) that the Amending Act was not applicable in view of the provisions of S. l6 (ii) of the Amending Act as the compromise decree had "become final", (ii) that the earlier compromise decree operated as res judicata, and (iii) that the judgment-debtors were not agriculturists as they were a joint Hindu family owning an estate for which a peshkash of more than Rs. 500/- was payable.

3. The Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, before whom the application was made, framed two issues as follows :

(1) Whether the petitioners are agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the Act, and

(2) Whether the present petition is barred under S. 16(ii) of the Amending Act, Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act (No. XXIII), 1948.

The learned Subordinate Judge first considered the second issue which was one of law, and by his order dated March, 15, 1950, held that the decree wag liable to be scaled down in view of the provisions of the Amending Act. He then set down the first issue for trial and posted the case for evidence on the question whether the judgment-debtors were agriculturists. The decree-holders meanwhile filed an application for revision (C. R. P. No. 656 of 1950) on April 28, 1950. The High Court heard this application on August 20, 1952, and decided to call for a finding from the Subordinate Judge whether the judgment-debtors were agriculturists. A preliminary order was made by the High Court directing the Subordinate Judge to take evidence and to submit his finding on this point and the parties were to be given an opportunity to object to the finding after it was received. The Subordinate Judge, after recording the evidence, submitted his finding on December 17, 1952. He held that the judgment-debtors constituted a joint family which owned an estate for which a peshkash of more than Rs. 500/- was payable and were thus not agriculturists.

4. When this finding was received in the High Court, the revision application was taken up for consideration. The High Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the provisions of the amending Act, were applicable, that the compromise decree could not be regarded as final for purposes of Cl. (ii) of S. 16 of the Amending Act, and that the principle of res judicata did not apply. The High Court endorsed the opinion of the Subordinate Judge that the judgment-debtors were entitled in law to have the decree scaled down, provided they were agriculturists. The