CHERUNNI Vs. SATHYANADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties in both these revision petitions are the same. Appeals are pending against two decrees obtained by the respondent against the petitioner. While so, the petitioner filed I. A. 584 of 1975 and I. A. 585/75 for a stay of proceedings under Act 30 of 1975 (hereafter to be referred as 'the Act'). The petitions were opposed on the ground that the petitioner is not a debtor under the Act since he was assessed to agricultural income tax during three years preceding the date of commencement of the Act. The District Judge accepted the contention and dismissed the petitions. The said orders are challenged in revision.

(2.) There is no dispute that the assessment orders relate to the petitioner. These assessment orders show that he was assessed to an income of Rs. 18048/- for the year 1970-71, Rs. 22317/- for the year 1971-72, for Rs. 23336/- for the year 1972-73 and for Rs. 25,115/- for the year 1973-74. The assessment orders for 1970-71 and 1971-72 were passed on 11-6-73, that of 1972-73 was on 14-7-1973 and that of 1973-74 was on 12-2-1975. Under S.2(5)(iii), a person will stand excluded from the definition of a debtor if it is proved that he is assessed to agricultural income tax in any two years within three years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act on an income exceeding eight thousand rupees per annum, The three years for the purpose of this section is the period 14-10-1972 to 14-10-1975. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the full period of two years for which the assessment is made should fall within the above period. In the instant case, the assessment year commences from the 1st of April in a calendar year and ends with 31st March in the next calendar year. If that be so, the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 do not fall within the period of three years. The two years which fall within the period are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The respondent has produced the assessment order only in respect of the year 1973-74. It appears that the assessment for the year 1974-75 was not over, when the documents were produced The point for consideration is whether the above argument should be accepted.

(3.) It is a well known principle of interpretation that effect should be given to every part of the Statute Law should be interpreted so as to make no word used therein redundant, if it is possible to give effect to all the words used. In the instant case, if the interpretation suggested by the revision petitioner is accepted, the words "within three years" in S.2(5)(iii) become superfluous and only persons who are assessed to agricultural income tax during 1973-1974 and 1974-75 are excluded from the definition of the word 'debtor'. This could not be the intention of the Legislature. It is not to be presumed that the Legislature used the above words without any purpose.