RAMALINGA REDDIAR Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment -debtor is the appellant herein. A decree was passed against him by the Sub -Court, Cuddalore, in O.S. No. 281 of 1969. The decree was passed on a joint memo. Under the decree a sum of Rs. 25,000 was payable with interest at 6 per cent, per annum. The amount was payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,500 the first instalment to start on 7th December, 1971. As only three instalments were paid, on the application of the decree -holder the decree was transmitted for execution to the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvanamalai. Before the executing Court, a petition under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (IV of 1938) was filed. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application on 10th October, 1973 saying that it was not stated in the petition under what provision of the Act the petitioner was claiming benefit. Even taking for granted that the petitioner was an agriculturist, he pointed out, that under the compromise decree, interest was claimed only at less than 3 per cent. (This is wrong, as under the joint memo. interest was payable at 6 per cent. He held that the petitioner had failed to establish that he was entitled to the benefits of that Act and that he was not entitled to the prayer for stay under Section 20.

(2.) AGAINST this order there was an appeal to the Sub -Court, Tiruvannamalai. The learned Subordinate Judge also pointed out that the appellant had not placed any material before the Court to show that he was an agriculturist and that he was entitled to the benefits of that Act. He observed also that the rate of interest worked out to less than 3 per cent, (this is wrong) as against the contract rate of 12 per cent. and that the appellant had not paid any amount before the suit, except the three instalments, as per the decree. He held that the dismissal of the petition was proper, as the petitioner -appellant had not shown as to how he was claiming the benefit of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 25 -A of the Act, provides, that an appeal shall lie from any of the orders set out in the section passed by a Court under the said Act, as if such order related to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree within the meaning of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are seven types of orders referred to in Clauses (a) to (f). But there is no reference to any order under Section 20 to be found therein. Sub -section (2) provides that from any order passed on an appeal presented to it under the provisions of Sub -section (1) by a Court subordinate to the High Court an appeal shall lie to the High Court on any of the grounds mentioned in sub -section' (1) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The point that I have to examine is whether the order passed under Sections 20 of the Act dismissing the petition is appealable or not.