ITTEN NARAYANAN Vs. NARAYANAN NAIR PARAMESWARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order dismissing an application for permission to discharge a debt, for the realisation of which a suit has been filed, by payments in instalments under the Travancore - Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act, 1956 (Presidents Act, III of 1956). The appellant had executed an usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 4,000 in favour of the respondent on 21.10.1953, and the latter filed a suit on 4.6.1956 for recovery of this mortgage amount and interest thereon from 20.10.1953 till date of suit and future interest alleging that the mortgagor had not given him possession of the mortgage property in spite of the execution of the mortgage deed. The appellant contested the suit, contending inter alia that he had given possession of the mortgage property to the respondent and was not therefore liable to pay interest on the mortgage amount. While the suit was pending trial, the Travancore - Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act of 1956 was passed by the President on the 6th September, 1956, and after the enactment of that Act and before the suit could be decreed the appellant filed a petition in the lower court praying that he might be permitted to discharge the debt in instalments under the said Act. This application the lower court dismissed on the ground that on account of the dispute regarding interest no decree could be passed in the suit and that it was not therefore possible to fix the amount payable by the appellant for each instalment. On behalf of the respondent it is contended in this court that as the order impugned by the appellant is not one passed under S.6 of the T.C. Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act the appeal itself is not maintainable and that on the merits also the lower courts order is right and proper.

(2.) The only provision in the Act relating to appeals is contained in S.7 of that Act. S.7 reads:

(3.) No doubt it is open to us to treat the appeal as a civil revision petition if there are proper grounds for interfering with the lower courts order in revision. But we are not satisfied that there is any ground for interfering in revision with the order appealed against. The application before the lower court seems to us to have bee misconceived. There is no necessity for any permission from the court to make a deposit under the T.C. Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act. All that is required when a debtor claims the benefit of the said Act is that he should make a deposit as provided in S.4 and 5 and apply for recording part satisfaction of the debt under S.6 on the ground that he is entitled to the benefit of the Act. If the amount deposited by him is insufficient, or if there is any dispute either as to the principal or as to the interest payable by the debtor, the court has to fix the correct amount after hearing both sides and to call upon debtor to make the deficiency, if any, within a time to be fixed by it. A dispute as regards the liability to pay interest cannot form an impediment in the way of making an application under S.6, for it is open to the debtor to make a deposit on the basis of the liability admitted by him and to leave it to the Court to fix the correct amount after hearing both sides. As this was not the procedure which the appellant adopted in the lower court and he had merely filed a petition for permission to pay the debt in instalments which was unnecessary his application was not maintainable. We therefore dismiss this appeal as not maintainable, but in dismissing it we make it clear that the dismissal of this appeal will be no bar to the appellant making a proper application to the lower court under S.6 of the Act. If and when he makes that application the respondent will have the right to raise all legitimate objections to such an application. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent in this court.