VINJARAPU NOOKARAJU Vs. PALAPARTHI YEDUKONDALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants in this appeal. The suit is laid on the foot of a promissory note executed by the defendants for a sum of Rs. 15582 -60 ps. The defendants admitted the execution but disputed that the consideration was not paid in full as it was taken to prevent the operation of Act 4 of 1937 in as much as the plaintiff paid only Rs. 7,000/ - but took promissory note for Rs. 14,000/ - thus Securing the benefit of higher interest of 24%. The Court below overruled the defence and decreed the suit. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly placed before me all the aspects and he could not substantiate that the finding of the court below is incorrect. The court below categorically found that this theory of payment of only half of the amount mentioned in the promissory note was not disputed inspite of three notices issued to the defendants and the evidence clearly discloses that this theory cannot be accepted. The learned counsel also could not seriously dispute the correctness of this finding and hence I am not adverting the evidence in detail.

(2.) SRI S. Ananda Reddy however tried to instill life into this appeal by urging a point about the applicability of the notification of the Government issued under Section 13 of the Act 4 of 1938. In this case it is necessary to notice that Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act 4 of 1938 which empowers the Government to notify altering the rate of interest payable from time to time. The said notification under Sec. 13 was issued on 6 -10 -77 as per A.P. Gazette, R.S. to Part II dated 6 -10 -77. Hence the plaintiff claimed the enhanced rate of 12% from 7 -10 -1977 to 31 -3 -78. However for the previous period viz., from the date of the instrument dated 16 -5 -1975 till 6 -10 -77 he claimed only 5 1/2%. Now the contention of Sri S. Ananda Reddy is that the notification dated 6 -10 -77 cannot have retrospective effect in the sense that it will not apply to the debts contracted prior to the said date. On the otherhand Sri V.L.N. Gopala Krishna Murthy urged that the notification was not given retrospective effect and is strictly kept prospective in operation, as he claimed the higher rate only from the date of the notification. In this case the notification mentioned 12 1/2% is the Instrument speaks of 12% only he claimed only 12%. Hence I have to examine the true operation of this notification issued under Sec. 13 of the Act. The contention of the appellants is that the notification cannot take vested right as it is subordinate Legislation and it can only operate prospectively but giving effect to the notification to the debts already constructed constitutes permitting the notification to operate with retroactivity. It is necessary to look to Sec. 13 which is in the following terms: