BHUPATHIRAJU VENKATAPATHIRAJU Vs. RAVIPATI VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is unnecessary to decide the question whether the payment of Rs. 6515 under Ex. P. 1(a) on 19-7-1946 was in part payment of the debt or in full discharge of the debt, for it is the admitted case of both the parties that on the date of the application there was no amount of debt due by the debtor to the creditor. Section 19-A(1), Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act states that where a debt incurred before 2-3-1938 is due by any person who claims that he was an agriculturist both on that date as well as 1-10-1937 the debtor or the creditor may apply to the Court having jurisdiction for a declaration of the amount of the debt due by the debtor 'on the date of the application'. Both sides admit that on the date of the application nothing was due from the appellant to the respondents. What the appellant says is that the payment of Rs. 6515 not only discharged the entire debt but that a sum of money would be due to him from the creditor. On the other hand, the respondents' case is that Rs. 6515 was paid in full settlement of the amount due to them on that date. The learned Judge in the Court below was inclined to accept the case of the respondents and therefore dismissed the application,

(2.) IN our view, on the pleadings an application under Section 19-A(1) does not lie at all. The necessary prerequisites for the maintainability of an application under Section 19-A is that the debtor must say that either there should be a declaration that the whole debt is wiped off or that a sum of money is due from him to the creditor; but whereas in the present case the creditor admits that no sum of money is due, there is no scope for the applicability of Section 19-A. The petition ought to have been dismissed on the plea of the respondents that no money was due to them from the appellant. The lower Court ought to have given a declaration that no money was due from the appellant to the respondents. Since we are of opinion that Section 19-A is not applicable to the facts of the present case, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.