(1.) THE question is whether the case falls under Section 4, Clause (a) of Madras Act IV of 1938 which runs thus: Nothing in this Act shall affect debts and liabilities of an agriculturist falling under the following heads : (a) any revenue, tax or cess payable to the Provincial Government. The respondent in this petition paid the revenue due to the Provincial Government for two faslis, and this Court held that he was entitled to recover the sums paid with interest at six per cent per annum from the dates of payments. Thereupon this petition was filed by the defendant to have the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 applied and for scalirig down. We sent the petition to the lower Court for findings. The lower Court has returned a finding that the petitioner is an agriculturist and that he is entitled to the benefits of the scaling down provisions. Objection is taken that the case falls under Section 4(a) of the Act and that therefore the debt is not liable to be scaled down. It is urged that the liability of the defendant falls under the head of "revenue payable to the Provincial Government" within Section 4(a) set out above and that therefore the petitioner is not entitled to have it scaled down.
(2.) IT is said on the other side that the petitioner is no longer under a liability to pay the revenue to the Provincial Government as it was paid by the present plaintiff while he was in possession of the property practically in the capacity of a receiver of Court, that what is now claimed is a right to recover in equity the sum paid by the plaintiff in respect of revenue due by the petitioner and that Section 4(a) does not therefore apply.
(3.) WE are inclined to hold that the expression "liability falling under the head of revenue due to Provincial Government" does not imply that the liability to pay the revenue to the Provincial Government should be subsisting on this date or that the suit itself should be directly by the person entitled to claim the revenue for recovery of "revenue" as such.