The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928, did not revive when the Act was struck down, as there was no subsequent legislation to revive it.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit, Original Suit No. 62 of 1970 on the file of the Munsiff, Chikkaballapur. The said suit was instituted for recovery of a certain sum of money due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. In the course of the written statement the defendant contended that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mysore Agriculturists, Relief Act, 1928, and, therefore, he was entitled to the reliefs trtereunder. In view of the above contention, the Munsiff framed issue No. 1. By the time the said issue was taken up for hearing it was held by this Court in P. V. Rangaswamy v. Shah Krishnaji Valaji and Co. , (1971) 1 Mys. L. J. 350 that the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928, was no longer in force, and, therefore, the Munsiff ordered that no relief could be granted to the defendant under that Act. He also ordered deletion of issue no. 1 in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has filed this petition. .

( 2 ) WHEN the petition came up for hearing before Jagannatha Shetty, J; he noticed that there was a conflict between the views expressed by this court in Rangasyamy's case (1) and the views expressed in Venkatappa v. S. N. Venkateshaiah, (1971)2 Mys L J. 348 and, therefore, he referred the above petition for disposal by a Division Bench

( 3 ) IT is necessary to state a few facts to understand the question involved in this case. The Mysore Agricultrists Relief Act, 1928, was in force in the area from which this case arises till the Mysore Agricultural Debtors relief Act, 1966 (Mysore Act 29 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was brought into force. The Act came into force with effect from April 1, 1969, as per the notification issued by the State Government under S. 1 (3) of the Act. By S. 64 (2) of the Act, the Mysore Agriculturists relief Act, 1928, was repealed. It was however provided that such repeal, would not affect the previous operation of that law and that anything done or any action taken thereunder shall not be invalid. Some time thereafter a large number of writ petitions were filed before this Court and they were all disposed of by a common judgment on October 31, 1969, holding that the whole Act was unconstitutional (Vide D. M. Thippeswamy v. State of Mysore, (1970) 1 Mys. L. J. 43 on the ground that S. 3, proviso (a) to Ss. 4 and 61 were violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that since these provisions were not severable from the rest of the provisions of the act, the entire Act was unconstitutional. We are informed that an appeal filed against the said decision is still pending before the Supreme Court.

( 4 ) AFTER the above decision the question whether a declaration made by this Court that the whole Act was unconstitutional would have the effect of reviving the Mysoer Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928, which was one of the Acts repealed bv S. 64 (2) of the Act, came up for consideration before this Court in Rangaswami's case (1 ). It was contended in that case that on account of the Act being declared as unconstitutional in its entirety, the repealing provision of that Act also should be deemed to have been held void from the inception, and therefore, the Act had not the effect of repealing the Acts mentioned in S. 64 Tn support of the above contention. a decision of tho Supreme Court in Mulchand Odhavaji v Rajkot Borough municipality, AIR 1970 SC 685 was relied upon. Venkataswami, J- who decided that case negatived the above submission after distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court relied on bv the petitioner Thereafter in Venkatappa' case (2) Datar J: relying upon the very same Supreme Court decision came to a contrary conclusion and held that the Mysore Agriculturists Relief act, 1928 revived on the Act being declared as unconstitutional bv this court. Sri H. R. Venkataramaniah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the very same decision of the Supreme Court contended