Availability of conditions for exemption under Section 4(h).

Subba Rao, J.-The question in this appeal turns upon the construction of section 4, clause (h) of Madras Act IV of 1938. One Ranga Rao executed a deed of mortgage dated 8th December, 1930, for a sum of Rs. 2,750 in favour of his daughter Seethammal. In execution of a money decree obtained by a creditor against Ranga Rao, the mortgaged properties were purchased by one Krishna Rao, subject to the suit mortgage. Krishna Rao in his turn sold the equity of redemption in the properties to the sister-in-law the first defendant. Second defendant, the husband of the first defendant, is a subsequent mortgagee. Defendants 3 and 4 are the lessees of the properties. The 5th defendant is a sub-mortgagee from Seethammal. Seethammal died on 24th August, 1945. The plaintiff, as her heir, filed O.S. No. 195 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,389-2-8 the amount due under the mortgage bond. The defendants contended that the suit mortgage was not supported by consideration, that it was bad for non-joinder of parties, that the suit document was taken by the plaintiff benami in the name of his wife and that the first defendant was entitled to a scaling down of the decree. The learned Subordinate Judge held against the defendants on all the points. He held that as the mortgagee was a woman on 1st October, 1937, the debt due to her was exempt from the operation of the Act. In the result he gave a preliminary decree for the recovery of the suit amount. The first defendant has preferred the above appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that section 4(h) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act does not apply to the suit debt as the plaintiff is not a woman at the time the debt is sought to be enforced though the creditor was a woman on 1st October, 1937. The relevant provisions may be extracted:

“Section 3(iii) -“debt” means 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, but does not include rent as defined in clause (iv), or ‘kanartham’ as defined in section 3 (l)(1) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929;”

“Section 7. Notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of court to the contrary, all debts payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this Act, shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.”

Section 13 provides for the scaling down of interest due on any debt incurred by an agriculturist after the commencement of the Act. Section 4 runs thus:

“Nothing in this Act shall affect debts and liabilities of an agriculturist falling under the following heads:

* * * * *

(h) any debt or debts due to a woman on the 1st October, 1937, provided that the value of the property owned by her on that date, including the principal amount of the debt or debts so due did not exceed six thousand rupees.”

A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions disclose the intention of the Legislature. Under the Act all debts payable by an agriculturist are liable to be scaled down. Section 4 excludes certain category of debts from the operation of the Act. The debts so excluded are defined and put under various heads. It is very difficult to ascertain any consistent principle for the classification adopted by the Legislature. The only logical basis is that the section defines the category of debts excluded from the operation of the Act. The debts excluded are narrated and the section does not purport to deal with the qualification of a creditor when he seeks to enforce his debt. The wording of section 4(h) is clear and unambiguous and does not admit of any doubt. A debt due to a woman on 1st October 1937 who on that date did not own property of the value mentioned therein is excluded. The point of time when the debt must satisfy the conditions laid down is 1st October, 1937. It lays down only two conditions, (1) that on 1st October, 1937, it should be a