SURAMPALLY NAGAYYA Vs. MADDUR NARAYANREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order made under section 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Debtors Relief Act (XVI of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The 3rd respondent in E.A. No. 39 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, is the appellant. The petitioners in the said E.A. are the respondents. 1 he parties will be referied to as in E.A. No. 39 of 1970.

(3.) The necessary facts may now be sta ted briefly. The respondents in the E.A. are the decree-holders. A suit, O.S. No.1/1 of 1957 was filed for recovery of money in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, against the father of the petitioners on the basis of a promissory note. On consent, the said suit was decreed. Then E.P. No. 17 of 1957 was filed and attachment of the properties of the judgment-debtor was effected. The petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor, came forward with objections to the attachment. The main objection was that the property could not be attached under section 60, Civil Procedure Code. That application was dismissed. The petitioners herein thereupon filed O.S. No. 29 of 1957 under the provisions of Order 21, rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that the debt and the decree in O.S. No. 1/1 of 1957 against their father was not binding on them. They contended that the promissory note on which a consent decree was passed was not supported by consideration and that the debt was illegal and immoral. It was also contended that the petitioners were agriculturists for purposes of section 60, Civil Procedure Code, and that therefore no attachment of the property could have been legally effected. The suit was dismissed. In that suit, admittedly no point was raised that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Act. Thereupon the petitioners had filed an appeal, A.S. No. 176 of 1969 in the High Court. The appeal was also dismissed on 14th, July, 1964. A point was sought to be raised in appeal that they were entitled to the benefits under the provisions of the Act. The learned single Judge Manoher Pershad (as he then was) did not allow the petitioners to raise the contention in appeal for the first time. The petitioners carried the matter in Letters Patent Appeal in L.P.A. No. 151 of 1964, wherein they sought to raise the same point disallowed by the leained single Judge. The Division Bench had dismissed the appeal. The ground that they were agriculturists entitled to exemption from attachmert under section 60, Civil Procedure Code, was given up before Bench hearing the L.P.A. The learned Judges Gopal Rao Ekbote (as he then was) and Venkateswara Rao, had observed:-