VEPA NAGASURYA VENKATA JOGA KUSUMA HARNATH BEING MINOR BY HIS MOTHER, BEPU SEETHAMMA Vs. CHAKKA BHAVANARAYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order out of which this civil revision petition arises was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam on an application made by the Petitioner under Section 20 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. A mortgage decree had been passed against the joint family to which the petitioner now belongs, but on the date when the decree was passed the petitioner was not born. Section 20 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act provides that:

(2.) IT is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the application need not be necessarily by a person against whom a decree was passed but by a person entitled to the benefits of Section 19 to which Section 20 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act is ancillary. In support of this petition he has referred me to a decision of Patanjali Sastri and Koman, JJ., in Sankaran Nambisan v. : AIR1946Mad158 . In that case the question whether a person entitled to the benefits of Section 19 but against whom a decree had not actually been passed was entitled to obtain a stay under Section 20 was not directly in issue. It was, however, observed by Patanjali Sastri, J., in his judgment that Section 19 of the Act:

(3.) IN this view the petition is allowed with costs.