L RAMA GOUD Vs. RAJA LAKSHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the representatives of a deceased plaintiff, whose plaint has been ordered by the Trial Court to be presented to the Collector. THE suit was filed on Bahman 20, 1346-F (December 23, 1936), and the plaintiff had asked for a decree of Rs. 30,800 with pendente lite interest against the defendants by the auction of properties that had been mortgaged. THE plaintiff was a Kalal and the defendants are Brahmins. During the pendency of the suit the Hyderabad Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, No. III of I349-F came into operation. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act had provided that the Government should by notification in the Gazette determine what persons in a district or districts were to be deemed as the agriculturist class. It is conceded that under section 10 of the Act the Taluqdar had powers in respect of certain mortgages by the agriculturist class ; but it is argued transactions of persons who do not belong to such a class would not be governed by the aforesaid provisions. On Azur 10, I35O-F (October 15, 1940), the Government issued a Notification, and according to the Notification certain classes of persons were declared as agriculturists. As neither parties to the litigation before us had been notified as agriculturists, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the mortgage which the plaintiff sought to enforce. THEn the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, No. XXI of 1950 repealed the aforesaid Act, but it preserved its operation so far as vested rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities were concerned. It also preserved pro. ceedings then pending. Obviously the repeal and the preservation of vested" rights cannot be availed of by the persons who were not covered by the repealed Act, and the Trial Court has erred in extending the operation of section 103 of the Tenancy Act to this case. It has taken the view that after the Tenancy Act no distinction can be drawn between the agriculturist and non-agriculturist. But it had erred in extending the saving provisions of a repealed Act to persons who had no rights under the repealed enactment. We, therefore, think that section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act which confers no new right, cannot be taken advantage of and the case cannot be directed to be proceeded with in the revenue Courts.

(2.) THE decision of the Trial Court on issue No. 4 is equally bad. It has held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any interest because he has not procured any certificate under the Hyderabad Money-lenders Act. THE transaction which the suit seeks to enforce, is of Aban 22, 1337-F (September 27, 1928). As already mentioned, the suit was filed on Bahman 20, I346-F (December 23, 1936). THE Hyderabad Money-lenders Act came into operation on Shehrewar 15, 1349-F (July 21, 1940). Obviously the provisions of such a subsequent enactment cannot cover a litigation based on an earlier transaction and also instituted earlier to the operation of the Act. We have examined the provisions of the aforesaid Act and we find nothing in it to give its provisions such retrospective effect. THE result is that the appeal is allowed, the decisions of the Trial Court on issue Nos. 4 and 11 are reversed? and the case is remanded to the Trial Court to deal with it according to law. As nobody appears on behalf of the respondents, we make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed Suit remanded.