Implied repeal of an enactment by a subsequent enactment occurs when the provisions of the two Acts are inconsistent and cannot stand together, or when the new law is intended as a substitute for the old. The intention of the legislature to supercede the old Act is a crucial factor in determining an implied repeal.

1. The question of law on which this appeal was admitted reads:

"Whether or not Cochin Act XVIII of 1114 is impliedly repealed by the subsequent enactments in force in Kerala on the subject of relief to agriculturist-debtors."

In view of the importance of the question a learned judge before whom the appeal came for hearing in the first instance referred it to a Bench. The first defendant-respondent joined a kuri conducted by the plaintiff-appellant, bid his ticket at the 8th draw and on receiving the prize executed a bond Ext. Al dated 7-11-1966 to secure the due payments of the future instalments. However he committed default from the

10th instalment. The plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of the defaulted instalments with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of default. So far as material the contentions raised by the first defendant were that the interest claimed in the plaint was excessive and that he was entitled to the benefits under the Agriculturists Debt Relief Act.

2. The learned trial judge held that even if the first defendant was an agriculturist within the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970 the Kerala Act still the Act had no application as the kuri terminated only on 30-3-1973 and not within a year prior to its commencement. He had an alternative contention that in any event he should get benefits of S.14 of the Cochin Agriculturists Relief Act, Act XVIII of 1114 the Cochin Act. The learned judge rejected the contention on the ground that he has not specifically pleaded this benefit in the written statement nor given any evidence with the result that the plaintiff had no opportunity to meet the plea or call evidence. The learned judge thus granted the plaintiff a decree in terms of the plaint with interest at 6 per cent from the date of suit and costs.

3. On appeal the only contention raised on behalf of the first defendant concerned the denial or the benefits of S.14 of the Cochin Act. The learned District Judge disagreed with the Subordinate Judge and found that the first defendant had pleaded its benefits. On the merits he held that S.14 of the Cochin Act was prospective and that it had not been repealed expressly or impliedly by the subsequent legislations granting relief to indebted agriculturists as contended by the plaintiff and that as an agriculturist he was entitled to the benefits of S.14. Accordingly the decree of the trial court was modified in so far as it related

to interest.

4. Although counsel for the appellant contended that for want of specific pleading the first defendant could not be heard to claim the benefit of S.14 of the Cochin Act, we are not impressed with the contention. Apart from the circumstance that this plea was urged in the courts below and was considered, no doubt differently by them which is sufficient to entitle it to consideration, the written statement is comprehensive to cover this plea also. The first defendant did contend that he was entitled to the benefits of Agriculturists Debt Relief Act but without specifying the Act. Admittedly the chitty transaction on which the suit is based is outside the scope of the Kerala Act, the current statute. The only other provision of which the first defendant could claim benefits was S.14 of the Cochin Act. His contention for the benefits of S.14 of the Cochin Act cannot in the circumstances be discountenanced for want of pleading.

5. The substantial question in the appeal on which it was admitted and which has been referred to a Bench turns upon whether S.14 of the Cochin Act has been repealed by the Kerala Act. Counsel were agreed that the Cochin Act or S.14 has not been expressly repealed by the Kerala Act or any earlier enactment. The arguments before us were also whether or not the Cochin Act has been impliedly repealed by the Kerala Act, the appellant contending that it has been so repealed and the respondent denying it. On this controversy the first point to be considered is when a repeal by implic