PUTTI HANUMAYYA Vs. KONDAVITI NAYUDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner executed a promissory note, Exhibit A -1, dated 28th June, 1930, in favour of the respondent's father representing the joint family. Subsequent to Exhibit A -1 there was a partition in the family and the suit debt was allotted to the respondent. The petitioner executed another promissory note Exhibit A -3, dated 20th June, 1942, in favour of the respondent alone. Subsequently it was renewed in his favour under Exhibit A -4, dated 19th June, 1945. The suit was filed by the respondent to enforce the promissory note Exhibit A -4. The petitioner, inter alia, raised the plea that he was an agriculturist and that the debt should be scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. The learned Principal Judge of Small Causes scaled down the suit debt but traced it back to Exhibit A -3, the first promissory note executed in favour of the respondent alone. The defendant has preferred the above Revision Petition.

(2.) EXPLANATION III to Section 8 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act as amended by Act XXIII of 1948 reads as follows:

(3.) IN the result, the petition is dismissed. But I make no order as to costs.