YEKKALA LAKSHMIKANTHAM Vs. PENDELA VENKACA KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of the learned District Judge, Guntur in A S.No. 127 of 72 allowing the appeal and remanding the petition filed by the 2nd defendant under section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act. The appellant herein is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note against two defendants. The defendants raised various pleas Including a plea that the debt was liable to be scaled down under the provisions of the Agriculturists Relief Act. An issue was framed on that pleading. But subsequently the defendants remained ex pane. The suit was tried and the debt was scaled down awarding interest at 5% per annum. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant filed the petition, I.A.No. 4753/70, under section 19 of the Act contending that the debt originated in a sum of Rs.350/- and that was being renewed and later split up and that the calculation arrived at in the suit was not correct, and if proper calculation was made, nothing would be due under the decree. The plaintiff decree-holder filed a counter contending that the petition was not maintainable and that the decree could not be re-opened when once it was passed after the coming into force of the Agriculturists Relief Act and that execution proceedings were also taken subsequently and some amounts were realised.

(2.) The question that fell for consideration before the Dis rict Munsif was whether the debt could be traced back to the original borrowing and scaled down by re-opening the decree. The le?rned District Munsif held that the question of scaling down the debt was agitated in the suit and a major relief was given to the defendants and that it could not be re-opened under section 19 of the Act and accordingly dismissed the petition.

(3.) The matter was carried in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Guntur in A.S.No. 127 of 1972. The learned District Judge, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nara. yanan Chettiar V. Annamalai Chettiar (I) A.I.R. 1959 Supreme Court 275 held that the principle of constructive res judicata did not apply to proceedings under Section 19 of the Act and that there was no decision on the merits of the claim for scaling down under the Act, and that it was only an exparte decree and therefore the petition under section 19 was maintainable, and in that view the learned Judge remanded the petition for disposal afresh.