AMAD MAMMAD Vs. UNICHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises for decision in both these C.M.S. As., relates to the interpretation of S.8 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act as amended making it applicable to usufructuary mortgages.

(2.) Main arguments were advanced in C. M. S. A. 44/1954 by Mr. K. P. Ramakrishna Ayyer, learned counsel for the appellant therein and his contentions were supported by Mr. V. P. Gopalan Nambiar appearing for the appellants in C. M. S. A. 104/1954.

(3.) In C. M. S. A. 44/1954, Mr. K. P. Ramakrishna Ayyer accepted the position that if the principle adopted by the lower courts was correct, then the amount fixed is correct. But his contention is that the principle applied by both the lower courts is not correct. In O. P. 41/1947 the debt was scaled down on 12-9-1947 as per the provisions of the Act then in force. The debtor applied to amend the decree by scaling down the debt further When the matter came up at one stage before the appellate court, it held that the debt in this case has to be scaled down by applying sub-s.9(a)(1) of S.9A and in accordance with the said decision, the learned District Munsiff, following the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Sevugam Chettiar v. Ranganatha Mudaliar (1940 (II) MLJ 870) scaled down the debt as on 1-10-1937. But the contention of the appellant is that the material date should be taken, not as 1-10-1937, but 12-9-1947 namely, the date of the order in O. P. 41/1947.