The central legal point established in the judgment is that a party must have a valid interest in the subject matter to make an application under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, and findings of a Court of first instance cannot be res judicata when a competent appeal has been preferred from its decree.

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. This is an appeal brought by the plaintiff against a mortgage decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coconada on 10th December 1935 and amended by the same Court on 9th November, 1942 under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. The mortgage bond on which the suit was based was executed by the respondents father for a sum of Rs. 40,000 describing the properties charged as his self-acquired arid separate properties. Belying on this description, the appellant alleged in the plaint that the properties were the separate properties of the mortgagor, but as the respondent was claiming an interest therein as the undivided son of the mortgagor he was also imp leaded in the suit and a decsee for sale of the entire properties was sought on the footing that even if the properties were found to be the joint family properties of the respondent and his father, the latter having granted the mortgage for purposes binding on the respondent, the mortgage was valid also in respect of the respondents interest. The mortgagor was defendant 1 and the respondent defendant 3 in the suit. Certain other persons were also made parties but this appeal is concerned only with defendant 3, the sole respondent.

2. The Court found that the mortgaged properties were joint family properties of the respondent and his father but the mortgage having been effected mainly for the purpose of discharging certain antecedent debts of the mortgagor, it was binding on the respondent, and passed a decree for Rs. 1,13,448-6-4 with subsequent interest and costs to be recovered by sale of the entire hypotheca including the respondents half share therein. The decree having thus granted to the appellant all the reliefs he claimed, though his case that the hypotheca was the separate property of the mortgagor was found against, the appellant had no occasion to prefer an appeal to displace that finding, as indeed no appeal could be preferred against a mere adverse finding to which no reference was made in the decree.

3. While proceedings in execution were in progress, the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed for a compulsory scaling down of debts due by "agriculturists" as defined in the Act. The respondent claiming to be such an agriculturist applied Under Section 19 to have the decree scaled down and "amended" in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The application was opposed by the appellant on the grounds, inter alia, (1) that the respondent was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, and (2) that, in any case, the hypotheca was the separate property of the mortgagor who was not an agriculturist, and as the respondent was not made personally liable under the decree, he was not in any way affected by it and so could not claim to have it scaled down. It is to be observed that in order to qualify as an agriculturist under the Act, the respondent must have "a saleable interest in any agricultural or horticultural land" of the kind described in Section 3(ii) and the mortgaged property being admittedly such land, the first ground of objection would fail if the property, is owned by the joint family. The finding arrived at in the suit in regard to the joint family ownership of the property would thus be a complete answer to both the grounds of objection raised by the appellant if such finding could be regarded as res judicata in the proceeding for scaling down the decree, and the respondent contended accordingly. The Court below accepting the contention, refused to try the same issue again and amended the decree, so far as the respondent was concerned by (1) wiping out all the interest accrued due till 1st October 1937 Under Section 8, (2) reducing the interest on costs from six per cent, to five per cent, per annum till 22nd March 1938 Under Section 9 and (3) separating the respondents half share of the debt as scaled down from that of his father