Nadimpalli Sitaramaraju and Others vs Koralla Satyanarayanamurthi (died) and Others

Subba Rao, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the decree made by 1 the learned Subordinate Judge''s Court of Kakinada '' pursuant to an order made by it u/s 19A (4) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act.

The facts are simple. The Appellants are the mortgagors and the Respondents are the mortgagees. The mortgagors filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada u/s 19A(4)(a) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act on the ground that they were agriculturists, and for declaring the amount due by them to the, Respondents. The Subordinate Judge held that the'' Appellants were agriculturists and also declared the amount due by them after applying the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. Subsequently on the basis that declaration, the creditors, paying Quirt-fee, applied for the passing of, a decree u/s 19A (5) of the Act. At that stage, the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act was amended AXXIII of 1948, and under the provisions of Act, the Appellants it is alleged, would be en-" to further reduction of the debt.

the basis of the new Act, the Appellants. filed counter alleging that in view of the provisions of the new Act, the decree should not the passed on the basis of the amount declared under the provisions of the unlamented Act. The learned Subordinate Judge holding that the amendment was not retrospective, refused to give any relief to the Appellants, and passed a decree on the baste of the amount already declared in the earlier application. The Appellants have preferred the above appeal. Pending the'' appeal, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held in Chintapalli Venkataratnam Vs. Merla Seshamma, , that Section16 of Act XXIII of 1948 enabled a debtor to invoke the provisions of the new Act till the decree: was finally satisfied. The learned Counsel, relying upon the Full Bench decision, contends that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is not sustainable.

The new Act may have given a right to the Appellants to get a further relief, but the of B" Won is what is. the procedure prescribed Act to enforce that right. A combined reading of Sub-Sections 4(a) and (5) of Section 19A indicates that after the debt is declared under Sub-Section 4(a), the Court; will have to pass a decree automatically in favour of the creditor, if he pays the Court-ice and asks for such a relief. Sub-section

docs not contemplate any further inquiry at that stage. It is only intended to enable a creditor to get a decree Instead of compelling him to file a suit again for recovering the amount due to him. But, this construction of the Sub-section will not debar the Appellants from enforcing their rights, if any, acquired by them under Act XXIII of 1943.

Section 19 (1) prescribes the machinery for amending a decree passed before the commencement of the Act. Sub-section (2), which was added by Section 10 of Act XXIII of 1948, applies the same procedure for amending decrees passed the Act came into force. The decree now obtained by be Respondents would certainly be a decree made "after the Act came into force. As the Appellants had no opportunity before the passing of the decree to get the debt reduced under the new Act, in our view, they would certainly be entitled to have relief u/s 19 (2) of the Act. In this view the appeal fails and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances without costs. The memorandum of cross-objections is also dismissed.