CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in S. C. S. 76/54 on the file of the Subordinate Court at South Malabar is the petitioner. His suit is for money due under a promissory note dated 19 -9 -1951 executed in his favor by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 590/ -. The defendant, claiming himself to be an agriculturist as. defined in the Madras Indebted Agriculturists' (Temporary Relief) Act 1954 (Act V of 1954), contented that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provision contained in section 3 of that Act. This plea of the defendant was upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge who, thereupon, dismissed the suit with costs on 17th September 1954. The plaintiff seeks a revision of that order on the ground that the Subordinate Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in Summarily dismissing the suit. The simple question for decision in this case is whether the scope of section 3 of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists' (Temporary Relief) Act, 1954 is such as to completely absolve the agriculturist debtor from his liability to pay the debt in case the creditor institutes a suit in disregard of the mandate contained in that section. I think the answer to this question must be in the negative. It is abundantly clear from the section itself and from the preamble to the Act, and also from the other provisions contained in the Act that only a temporary relief for a limited period, from being harassed by creditors was intended to be conferred by the Act on indebted agriculturists. Section 3 runs as follows:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has cited the decision in Palanichami Chettiar v The Reliance Bank of India, Ltd., (1956 -II M. L. J. 1) in support of his contention that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in dismissing the suit. The question that arose for consideration in that case was whether an application for ratable distribution filed in execution of a decree for recovery of money due from an agriculturist, was an application for execution hit by the provisions of section 3 of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists' (Temporary Relief) Act. The question was answered in the affirmative and the application for ratable distribution was dismissed. The view taken in that case appears to be that a suit or an application filed in contravention of section 3 has only to be dismissed and that the provision contained in section 3 is clearly to that effect and, as such, there is no justification for examining the statute as a whole to find out the real intention of the legislature in enacting section 3. With all respect I have to dissent from the view that section 3 contains a mandate that a suit or an application hit by that section has to be dismissed. It has already been pointed out that the only effect of that section is to suspend legal proceedings against an agriculturist debtor for a period of one year from the commencement of the Act and not to negative the claim of the creditor. I have already explained the procedure to be followed by the Court in respect of a suit or an application by a creditor for the recovery of a debt due from an agriculturist. In the result, this revision petition is allowed with costs and in reversal of the decree of the lower court, the suit is restored to file for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. For that purpose the records will forthwith be sent back to the lower court.