VENKATAPPA Vs. S N VENKATESHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in these revision petitions is the defendant. Plaintiff-respondents filed two suits O. S No 152 of 1967 and O. S. No. 130 of 1967, for recovery of certain amount due to mem. The defendant is the same in both the suits. Two issues were raised as to whether the defendant was an agriculturist as defined by Section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act at the time of the suit transactions and whether the suit was in lime. The learned trial Judge recorded the evidence and came to the conclusion that the defendant was an agriculturist as defined by Section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, and therefore, held that the suit was within time. It is the correctness of the findings on these issues that is challenged in these two revision petitions.

(2.) Sri N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions, contended that the finding that the income of the petitioner was only Rs. 1500/- per year was not justified by the evidence on record. He hae taken me through the oral as well as documentary evidence in the case. The records would disclose that the case of the defendant that he was getting an income of Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- is not supported by any material. It is not disputed that the only source of income of the defendant was from agriculture, and having regard to the evidence on record, it has to be held that the gross income which the defendant was getting was about Rs. 2,000/-. The court below has accepted the fact that Rs. 500/- to 600/- has been spent for cultivation, with the result, that the net income would be Rs. 1,500/-. Having regard to the material on record, I am of the view that this finding cannot be said to be erroneous and so it cannot be interfered with.

(3.) Sri Raghupathy raised another contention that the question of determination of the issues arising under the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act of 1928 does not arise for consideration as that Act was no more in operation. In support of that contention, reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court reported in (1971) 1 Mys LJ 350. P. V. Rangaswamy v. Shah Krishnaji Valaii & Co., wherein Venkataswami. J. held as follows:-