PADMAVATHY Vs. HASSANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question arising for decision in this appeal is whether S. 5 (1) (a) (i) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 (XXXI of 1958 as amended by Act II of 1961) is attracted to the facts of this case. THE court below has held that it is not attracted. THE matter is covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Chacko Pyli v. Madhavi Amma 1963 KLT. 332. If we follow that decision, as we normally should, this appeal has to be allowed.

(2.) IT is, however, contended by counsel for the respondent that the decision has to be reconsidered. Reliance was placed on a decision of a Single Judge of this Court reported in Eapen Philipose v. Neelakantan Raman 1963 KLT. 317 and certain other points were raised by counsel for the respondent which according to him were not considered by the Division bench ruling.

(3.) HOWEVER, it is urged that no sums have been paid or credited towards interest as required by S. 5 [1] [a] I i I and, therefore, S. 5 cannot be attracted. It is said that there is no provision in the Act for treating rent that has been paid as interest and for re-opening such payments. There must be, according to counsel for the respondent, specific provision in the Act that rent paid before the commencement of the Act should be treated as interest. Our attention was drawn to S. H (6) (b) and it was pointed out that there is no provision in the Act for any rate of interest for this debt for the period before the commencement of the Act and there being no contract between the parties for payment of any interest for the period before the commencement of the Act, it will not be possible to postulate that any amount has been paid towards interest.