C RUDRE GOWDA Vs. ANGADI CHIKKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit, Original Suit No. 62 of 1970 on the file of the Munsiff, Chikkaballapur. The said suit was instituted for recovery of a certain sum of money due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. In the course of the written statement the defendant contended that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928, and, therefore, he was entitled to the reliefs thereunder. In view of the above contention, the Munsiff framed issue No. 1. By the time the said issue was taken up for hearing it was held by this Court in E. V. Rangaswamv v. Shah Krishnaji Valaji & Co., (1971) 1 Mys LJ 350 that the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928, was no longer in force, and, therefore, the Munsiff ordered that no relief could be granted to the defendant under that Act. He also ordered deletion of issue No. 1 in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has filed this petition.

(2.) When the petition came up for hearing before Jagannatha Shetty, J. he noticed that there was a conflict between the views expressed by this Court in Rangaswamy's case, (1971) 1 Mys LJ 350 and the views expressed in Venkaiappa v. S. N. Venkateshaiah, (1971) 2 Mys LJ 348 = (AIR 1972 Mys 119) and, therefore, he referred the above petition for disposal by a Division Bench.

(3.) It is necessary to state a few facts to understand the question involved in this case. The Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928, was in force in the area from which this case arises till the Mysore Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1966 (Mysore Act 29 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was brought into force. The Act came into force with effect from April 1, 1969, as per the notification issued by the State Government under Section 1 (3) of the Act. By Section 64 (2) of the Act, the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928, was repealed. It was however provided that such repeal would not affect the previous operation of that law and that anything done or any action taken thereunder shall not be invalid. Some time thereafter a large number of writ petitions were filed before this Court and they were all disposed of by a common judgment on October 31, 1969, holding that the whole Act was unconstitutional (vide D. M. Thippeswamy v. State of Mysore, (1970) 1 Mys LJ 43 on the ground that Section 3, proviso (a) to Sections 4 and 61 were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that since those provisions were not severable from the rest of the provisions of the Act, the entire Act was unconstitutional. We are informed that an appeal filed against the said decision is still pending before the Supreme Court.