MANNE SATYANARAYANAMURTHY Vs. TIVARI YAGNAPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal against the preliminary decree dated 11th November, 1960 for redemption and redition of accounts made in O.S; No. 13 of 1960 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur. The principal question for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief under section 13-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) called in this State as the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act and hereinafter mentioned as the Act.

(2.) The first plaintiff is the grandfather of plaintiffs 2 and 3. They became indebted to the defendant under two mortgage deeds jointly executed by them in his favour, Exhibit B-1 dated 25th August, 1947 for Rs. 25,000 carryirg interest at Re. 0-9-0 per cent per mensem, and Exhibit 6-4 dated 13th March, 1948 for Rs. 4,000 carrying interest at Re. 0-12-6 per cent per mensem. They made two payments which were endorsed on Exhibit B-1, Rs. 3,000 on 15th November, 1947 and Rs. 12,919-14-0 on 20th July, 1949. Subsequently, they deposited in the lower Court on 2Oth October, 1956 a sum of Rs. 22,742 in O.P. No. 32 of 1956 filed by them under section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The amount was paid out to the defendant in I.A. No. 1364 of 1956 without prejudice to his contention that only Exhibit B-1 was fully discharged and a sum of Rs. 5,331-2-0 remained due under Exhibit B-4. On 19th March, 1957, O.P. No. 32 of 1956 was dismissed, leaving open the question whether the amount deposited was the correct amount due on both the mortgages for determination in appropriate proceedings. On 22nd February, 1959 the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for a declaration that both the mortgages were discharged by their payments and for rendition of accounts by the defendant after appropriating the payments in accordance with the Act. The defence was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the benefits of the Act, as they had been assessed to income-tax and profession-tax at all material times and that a balance remained due under Exhibit B-4. At the trial, the defendant was able to prove only that the plaintiffs had paid profession-tax on a half-yearly income of more than Rs. 600 in all the four half-years ending on the 31st March immediately preceding Exhibit B-1, disentitling them to relief under section 13 of the Act in respect of that debt. The profession-tax register for 1947-48 happened to have been destroyed and therefore he was not able to adduce evidence as to their payment of profession-tax for also the half-year ending 3oth September, 1947 which would have disentitled them to the benefit of section 13 of the Act in respect of Exhibit B-4. The learned Subordinate Judge held that in respect of Exhibit B-4, section 13 directly applied and the interest on the debt has to be scaled down to 5 per cent. He further held that the plaintiffs were entitled to benefit of section 13-A of the Act and so the rate of interest applicable to both the debts was 5 per cent with the result that the amount deposited by them in O.P. No. 32 of 1956 was in excess of the amount due under the two mortgages. On this footing he passed a decree declaring that both Exhibits B-1 and B-4 were redeemed and directing the defendant to render an account calculating interest at 5 per cent. so that the amount due between the parties could be determined in the final decree proceedings. The main point taken by the appellant is that, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit of section I3-A of the Act.

(3.) In order to appreciate his submissions, it will be useful to read the relevant portions of sections 3, 13 and 13-A of the Act. 3. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,