BATCHU CHINA VENKATRAYUDU AND OTHERS Vs. PERURI SITHARATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Kakinada dismissing a petition under section 19 of the Madras Act (IV of 1938). The appellants borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,100 on two promissory notes, dated 21st November, 1938. To secure this debt, title deeds relating to house properties were also deposited with the respondent. On a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount due to her in respect of this transaction, a preliminary decree was passed on the 16th July, 1948 and a final decree on 11th March, 1949. Meanwhile, Act XXIII of 1948 was passed by the Madras Legislature Amending Act IV of 1938 by introducing sub-section (2) to section 19. It is useful to refer to sub-section (1) of section 19 which is in the following terms:

(2.) The appellants wanted to take advantage of the amendment and filed an application for scaling down the decree debt. This was opposed, inter alia, on the ground that this sub-section has no application to debts incurred after the commencement of Act IV of 1938. Agreeing with this contention, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition.

(3.) In this appeal, it is urged that all debts incurred even subsequent to the passing of Act IV of 1938 but prior to the commencement of the amending Act, Act XXIII of 1948 are covered by this sub-section. According to them the word 'Act' in the expression "˜Commencement of this Act5 has reference to the amending Act (Act XXIII of 1948) and that, that being so, a debt payable at such commencement included all debts payable at the commencement of the amending Act. I do think I can give effect to this argument. In my opinion, the expression 'after the commencement of this Act' only means 'after the commencement of Act IV of 1938, and the amending Act of 1948. If that is so, the expression at such 'commencement' can have reference only to the commencement of the main Act. Prima facie it cannot allude to the amending Act, because there is nothing to indicate it in the section. In my opinion whenever a statute refers to the Act, it can only be to the main Act and to the subsequent Acts which amend the main Act. If the legislature intended to refer to the amending Act, it would have specifically stated so in the body of the section. A perusal of section 23-A of the Act makes it abundantly clear. Section 23-A is as follows :