VENUGOPAL CO P LTD Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law on which this appeal was admitted reads:

(2.) The learned trial Judge held that even if the first defendant was an agriculturist within the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970 the Kerala Act still the Act had no application as the kuri terminated only on 30-3-1973 and not within a year prior to its commencement. He had an alternative contention that in any event he should get benefits of S.14 of the Cochin Agriculturists Relief Act, Act XVIII of 1114 the Cochin Act. The learned Judge rejected the contention on the ground that he has not specifically pleaded this benefit in the written statement nor given any evidence with the result that the plaintiff had no opportunity to meet the plea or call evidence. The learned Judge thus granted the plaintiff a decree in terms of the plaint with interest at 6 per cent from the date of suit and costs.

(3.) On appeal the only contention raised on behalf of the first defendant concerned the denial or the benefits of S.14 of the Cochin Act. The learned District Judge disagreed with the Subordinate Judge and found that the first defendant had pleaded its benefits. On the merits he held that S.14 of the Cochin Act was prospective and that it had not been repealed expressly or impliedly by the subsequent legislations granting relief to indebted agriculturists as contended by the plaintiff and that as an agriculturist he was entitled to the benefits of S.14. Accordingly the decree of the Trial Court was modified in so far as it related to interest.