ARCHAKAN SESHACHELAM DIKSHITULU Vs. KALLUR VENKATA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case has been care-fully argued, but I do not consider it necessary to reserve judgment. Under Act VIII of 1865, it was a good defence to a suit for rent to plead that a proper patta had neither been tendered nor dispensed with. It is contended that the effect of Section 2 of Act I of 1903, whereby Act VIII of 1865 is repealed, is to disentitle a defendant to rely on this defence in an appeal heard after the coming into force of the new Act from a decree passed before it came into force. It was laid down in Wright v. Hale 6 H. & N. 227 : 30 L.J. Ex. 40 : 6 Jur. (N.S.) 1212 : 3L.T. 444 : 9 W.R. 157 that, in dealing with Acts which have the effect of taking away rights of action, we ought not to construe them as having a retrospective operation, unless it appears clearly that such was the intention of the Legislature. THE same principle would apply to rights of defence, and has even been held to apply to changes of procedure which affect rights previously existing in pending proceedings, such as the right of appeal: Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving (1905) A.C. 369 : 74 L.J. P.C. 77 : 21 T.L.R. 513 : 92 L.T. 738. Section 2 here merely repeals Act VIII of 1865, and there is nothing in it to show that it was intended generally to affect pending proceedings under the earlier Act and to give it such a cm-struction would be opposed to the provisions of Section 8 of the Madras General Clauses Act I of 1891. THE petition is dismissed with costs.