(1.) The revision is filed under Section 12 of the Hyderabad Small Causes Courts Act, by a defendant against a decree passed in a small Cause suit, S. C. S. 303/65 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
(2.) The defendant, who is a permanent resident of Narasaraopet, Guntur District, executed a promissory note on 26-10-1949 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- borrowed from the plaintiff's transferor, who is also a permanent resident of Narasaraopet with a stipulation to pay simple interest at 9% per annum After same payments were made, the promissory note was finally renewed by the execution of a fresh promissory note on 25-3-1951 by the defendant in favour of the original payee. Thereafter, the payee under the promissory note transferred the said promissory note merely for collection on 10-1-1965 at Hyderabad in favour of the plaintiff who is residing at Hyderabad. Hence the plaintiff filed the above suit to recover the amount due under the Promissory note but claimed subsequent interest, that is, from the date of suit at 51/2% The defendant contested the suit claiming relief under section 13 of the Madras (Andhra) Agriculturists Debt Relief Act (IV of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), The plaintiff amended his plaint with the leave of the Court stating that the Act does not apply to Hyderabad area and that the defendant, is not therefore entitled to any relief under the Act. The Court below held that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the telangana area and accordingly decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the said dacree, the defendant filed the above Revision The main point for consideration in this Revision is whether the defendant is entitled to claim relief under Madras Act IV of 1938. Sri Y. G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that as the debt was incurred at a place where the said Act. is applicable and as the parties are also residents of Narasaraopet. the defendant is entitled to claim the benefit of the Act, though the suit is filed at Hyderabad. On the other hand, Sri P. M, Gopal Ran the learned counsel for the plaintiff sought to support the judgement of the lower Court by raising various interest, ing questions of law In support of his contention that the provisions of the Act cannot be enforced beyond the territorial limits of the erstwhile composite Madras State, corresponding to the Andhra area of the Andhra Pradesh reliance is placed by the plaintiff on section 2 of the Act which reads as follows : Section 2: "It extends to the whole of the State of Madras",
(3.) AS regards the territorial application of the Act, reliance is placed by the Plaintiff's learned counsel on a ruling in Ramamurti V. Kulamani (1) in which an application for scaling down a decree debt filed under Section 19 of the Act was rejected on the ground that the mortgaged property which was the subject matter of the decree retrained within the province of Madras after the formation of the Orissa Province and that the Court in the Orissa province cannot entertain the application to amend the decree, In coming to this conclusion, it was held that "court" contemplated under Section 19 of the Act is only a court which is within the Madras Province but not outside. But in Ramaiah V. Ramaiah (2) it was held that a contract of mortgage of land situated within the Madras presidency and executed within the said province, though in discharge of a debt contracted outside the said province, is governed by the laws of the Madras province and hence liable to be scaled down under the Act.