VENKATAPPA ALIAS CHINNAPPA Vs. S N VENKATESHATAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in these revision petitions is the defendant. Plantiffs-Respondents filed two suits; OS. No.152 of 1967 and OS. No.130 of 1967, for recovery of certain amount due to them. The defendant is the same in both the suits. Two issues were raised as to whether the defendant was an agriculturist as defined by S.2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act at the time of the suit transactions and whether the suit was in time. The learned trial Judge recorded the evidence and came to the conclusion that the defendant was an agriculturist as defined by S.2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, and therefore, held that the suit was within time. It is the correctness of the findings an 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. 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 in P.V. Rangaswamy v. Shah Krishnaji Valaji & Co., 1971 Mys.L.J. 350. wherein Venkataswami, J. held as follows: "On the Mysore Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1966 being held to be unconstitutional by the High Court, the earlier Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act 1928 which was repealed by the 1966 Act, did not stand revived." In my view, the view taken by Venkataswami, J. is not in accordance with the principle laid down in the judgment of the division Bench of this Court in C. M. Gopala Setty v. Channarayapatna Town Municipality, 1970 1 Mys.L.J. 278. as also of the Supreme Court judgment in Shri Mulchand Odhavaji v. Rajkot Brorough Municipality, AIR. 1970 SC. 685.