NIMMAGADDA RAMASESHAYYA Vs. ADUSUMILLI KUTUMBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises the question of the meaning of words "debts incurred before the 1 October, 1932," in Section 8 of the Madras Act IV of 1938. The transaction with which we are concerned is a decree dated 2,1 August, 1936, which itself is passed on the basis of a promissory note of 1928 which promissory note was in renewal of an earlier promissory note of 1925. The learned Subordinate Judge, has held that the debt to be scaled down is the decree itself and not the antecedent debt which formed the basis for the decree. He bases his decision on the definition of the word debt in Section 3 of the Act which contains the words: Debt means any liability in cash or kind...due from an agriculturist, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise.

(2.) He holds that since the definition of the word debt covers one payable under a decree we must regard the decree as the starting point and since the decree was passed in 1936, it must be scaled down under Section 9 of the Act and not under Section 8. The learned Subordinate Judge has not, however, considered two provisions in the Act, which, in our opinion, render it impossible to hold the view which he expresses.

(3.) Firstly, we have the second part of Section 7 which says: No sum in excess of the amount as so scaled down shall be recoverable from him or from any land or interest in land belonging to him; nor shall his property be liable to be attached and sold or proceeded against in any manner in the execution of any decree against him in so far as such decree is for an amount in excess of the sum as scaled down under this Chapter.