SATTARU NARAYANAAPPALANAIDU Vs. TADELA LATCHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The undivided father of appellants 3 to 5 in the Second Appeal executed a promissory note dated 3-3-1956 for a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 agreeing to pay interest at 18% per annum. Subsequently he made certain payments. On 29-11-1958 he executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,489.00 being the amount due under the prior promissory note after giving credit to the payment. A suit was filed against the father as defendant-1 and his sons as defendants 2 to 4 and others for the recovery of the amount due under that promissory note which was marked as Ex. A-1 in the case. The defendants contended inter alia that they were agriculturists and entitled to the benefit of the scaling down of the debt under the Madras Agriculturists Debt Relief Act of 1938 (Act IV of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The Trial Court holding that they were so entitled, scaled down the amount due under the promissory note and gave a decree for Rs. 465-76 nap. with proportionate costs and dismissed the rest of the suit claim. The plaintiff-creditor preferred A. S. 92 of 1963 to the Additional District Court, Srikakulam. The learned District Judge held following the decision of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court, in Papathi Ammal v. Nallu Pillai, (1963) 2 Mad LJ 594 = (AIR 1964 Mad 173 FB), that in respect of a debt incurred after the coming into force of the Act, it is necessary before the debtor could be given relief under Section 13 of the Act that he should prove that he was an agriculturist not only on the date when the debt was incurred but also on the date of the suit and as it was found that he had ceased to be an agriculturist by the date of the suit by reason of the fact that the first defendant was carrying from the year 1956 on ward she was not entitled to claim the benefit of scaling the result the suit was decreed in full as claimed by the plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 9 have preferred the Second Appeal, defendants 1 and 2 having died during the tendency of the suit.

(2.) The only question that is argued in the Second Appeal is that the view of the lower appellate Court that in order to claim benefit under Section 13 of the Act, it must be proved that the debtor is an agriculturist on the date of the suit is contrary to law.

(3.) The revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Music Magistrate, Elurur in Small Cause Suit No. 4/66. The suit was brought by the respondent against the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 420.00 due on a promissory note dated 5-11-1959 executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondents father. That promissory note was a renewal of a previous promissory note dated 20-1-1951 executed for a sum of Rs. 2,000.00. The suit was brought on 11-11-1965 and it is admitted that on 14-12-1959 the debtor had sold all his agricultural lands and therefore, he was not an agriculturist on the date of the suit. The learned Munsif Magistrate following the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in (1963) 2 Mad LJ 594 = (AIR 1964 MD 173 FB), held that as the debtor was admittedly not on agriculturist on the date of the suit, the petitioner could not claim the benefits of Section 13 of the Act and decreed the suit as prayed for. The debtor has preferred the revision petition questioning the correctness of that decision.