These are consolidated appeals by special leave from two orders of the High Court of Madras, both dated the 27th January, 1942, the first setting aside in appeal an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated 25th July, 1938, and the second setting aside in revision an order of the same Subordinate Judge made on the 9th February, 1939.

The substantial question for decision in these appeals is whether the respondent is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act (Act IV of 1938) hereinafter referred to as “the Act.” But the appellant has argued as a preliminary point that, assuming the respondent to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, the orders of the High Court which are under appeal were incompetent and that this appeal should succeed on that ground. It will be convenient to deal with this point first.

The facts relevant to the determination of this question are these:

On the 15th September, 1925, a final decree was passed in a mortgage suit, which was Original Suit No. 5 of 1921 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura, in favour of the appellants or their predecessors in title against the predecessor in title of the respondent. For convenience, the parties interested from time to time in the mortgage decree will in this part of this judgment be referred to as the “decree-holders” and the person interested in the equity of redemption as the “judgment-debtor”. Execution Proceeding No. 79 of 1933 was taken out to enforce the final decree and certain of the mortgage properties were advertised for sale, but before a sale had been effected the Act was passed in March, 1938. On the 8th July, 1938, the judgment-debtor made Execution Application No. 237 of 1938 to the said Subordinate Judge, which was intituled E.A. No. 237 of 1938 in E.P. No. 79 of 1933 in O.S. No. 5 of 1921, and was expressed to be made under sections 20, 19 and 8 of the Act, and sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relief prayed was that the Execution Proceedings in E.P. No. 79 of 1933 and the auction sale then pending be stayed until the disposal of the question of the extent of liability of the petitioner for the debt under section 19 of the Act and a declaration that the debt was wholly discharged under section 8 of the Act. In order to appreciate the nature of this relief it is necessary to notice that under section 8 of the Act the debts of an agriculturist can be scaled down. Under section 19 it is provided, so far as material for the present purpose, that where a Court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt it shall, on the application of any judgment-debtor who is an agriculturist, apply the provisions of the Act to such decree and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, amend the decree accordingly, or enter satisfaction as the case may be. Section 20 provides that every Court executing a decree passed against a person entitled to the benefits of the Act shall, on application, stay the proceedings until the Court which passed the decree has passed orders on an application made or to be made under section 19, but a proviso to the section enacts that where within 60 days after an application for stay has been granted the judgment-debtor does not apply to the Court which passed the decree for relief under section 19, the decree shall be executed as it stands.

On the 25th July, 1938, Execution Application No. 237 of 1938, came before the Subordinate Judge who dismissed it summarily on the ground that the judgment-debtor was not an agriculturist. From that order an appeal was brought to the High Court of Madras and that Court directed the learned Subordinate Judge to submit a finding whether the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist and if so, to what relief he was entitled under the Act. On the matter coming again before the Subordinate Judge on remand he heard evidence and delivered a detailed judgment o