LAKSHMI ACHI AND OTHERS versus T.V.V. KAILASA THEVAR AND OTHERS

LAKSHMI ACHI AND OTHERS versus T.V.V. KAILASA THEVAR AND OTHERS

Section 19(2) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, as amended by section 16(iii) of the 1948 amending Act, created a fresh right in favour of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) to apply for scaling down the decree where such decree had not been executed or satisfied in full before commencement of the amending Act. The operative decree in the case was the one entered after the High Court appeal. Previous dismissal of applications does not bar relief under the new statutory right. Respondent No. 1 is entitled to relief provided he proves he is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act.

Parties
Appellants: Lakshmi Achi and Others; Respondents: T.V.V. Kailasa Thevar and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 March 1963
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated December 2, 1955 of the Madras High Court in C.m.a. No. 355 of 1951
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Scaling Down of Decree Debt, Res Judicata, Statutory Interpretation, Madras Agriculturists Relief Act
Debt Relief Agricultural Law Scaling Down of Decree Debt Res Judicata Statutory Interpretation Madras Agriculturists Relief Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakshmi Achi and Others

Appellants

T.V.V. Kailasa Thevar and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated December 2, 1955 of the Madras High Court in C.m.a. No. 355 of 1951

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a decree passed before the commencement of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, as amended, gives a right to the judgment-debtor to apply for scaling down under section 19(2) and section 16(iii) of the amending Act, 1948
  2. 2 Whether dismissal of earlier applications under the Act bars subsequent applications after amendment
  3. 3 Does res judicata operate to defeat the new statutory right created by the amending Act

Ratio Decidendi

Section 19(2) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, as amended by section 16(iii) of the 1948 amending Act, created a fresh right in favour of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) to apply for scaling down the decree where such decree had not been executed or satisfied in full before commencement of the amending Act. The operative decree in the case was the one entered after the High Court appeal. Previous dismissal of applications does not bar relief under the new statutory right. Respondent No. 1 is entitled to relief provided he proves he is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent No. 1 is entitled to benefit of section 19(2) read with section 16(iii) of the amending Act, provided he establishes that he is an agriculturist within the meaning of the principal Act.
  • Appellants to pay costs; only one hearing fee awarded.