Skip to content


Madhu Rao Vs. Subbaraya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 468 of 1950-51
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Kant2; AIR1952Mys2; (1953)31MysLJ135
ActsDebt Law; Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1928 - Sections 1, 1(2), 2, 5 and 8; Provinces and States (Absorption of Enclaves) Order, 1950 - Sections 8 ; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 92
AppellantMadhu Rao
RespondentSubbaraya
Appellant AdvocateNittoor Srinivasa Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.P. Somasekhara Rao, Adv.
Excerpt:
the case debated over the entitlement of the defendant to claim relief under section 1(2) of the mysore agriculturists' relief act (18 of 1928), when the defendant resided in a village outside mysore, which later became part of mysore under provinces and states (absorption of enclaves) order, 1950 - the court held that the defendant, who was an agriculturists, was entitled to reliefs under the mysore agriculturists relief act, 1928. - section 29: [s.r. bannurmath & a.n. venugopala gowda,jj] concluded contract sale of seized assets of borrower by financial corporation - offer of appellant accepted and acted upon by corporation, by receiving money and adjusting to loan account - letter of confirmation of sale issued by corporation held, offer made to appellant by corporation, that too,..........agriculture in the area to which this regulation applies for the time being or at the time or the suit transaction, as the village in which the defendant was residing was outside mysore state, though it became part of the mysore state before the suit was filed, under the provisions of the provinces and states (absorption of enclaves) order 1950.3. it was argued that it cannot be said that the agriculturists relief act is applicable to the defendant as in the first place, the agriculturists relief act has not been extended by notification in the official gazette by the government to the village in which the defendant resides though now it forms part of mysore state, and secondly that even otherwise he cannot be said to be a person engaged in agriculture in the area to which this act.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Munsiff, Sagar, in O. S. No. 121 of 50-61 on the file of his Court holding that the defendant is entitled to claim the reliefs under the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act.

2. It was admitted that the defendant was a person ordinarily engaged in agriculture and that his income is about Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per year. But it was contended that he cannot be-said to be a person ordinarily engaged in agriculture in the area to which this regulation applies for the time being or at the time or the suit transaction, as the village in which the defendant was residing was outside Mysore State, though it became part of the Mysore State before the suit was filed, under the provisions of the provinces and States (Absorption of Enclaves) Order 1950.

3. It was argued that it cannot be said that the Agriculturists Relief Act is applicable to the defendant as in the first place, the Agriculturists Relief Act has not been extended by notification in the official gazette by the Government to the village in which the defendant resides though now it forms part of Mysore State, and secondly that even otherwise he cannot be said to be a person engaged in agriculture in the area to which this Act applies for the time being or at the time of the suit transaction. As regards the first point it is no doubt true that the Agriculturists Relief Act can only come into operation after it is extended by notification of Government in the Official Gazette as stated in para 2 of S. 1 of the Agriculturist, Relief Act. The Act, however, had been extended to the whole of Mysore State by notification of Government in the Official Gazette by the the the village in question became part of Mysore. Under Section 8 of the Provinces and States (Absorption of Enclaves) Order 1950,

'All laws in force in an enclave immediately before the appointed day shall, as from that day, cease to be in force in that enclave, and all laws in force in the absorbing unit shall, as from that day, extend to, and be in force in, that enclave:'

It will be noticed that the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act was in force in the absorbing unit and as such under Section 8 of the Provinces and States (Absorption of Enclaves) Order, 1950, it was extended to and has been in force in the village in question. This was published in the Mysore Gazette for general information by order of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the Agriculturists Relief Act has not been extended to the area within which the defendant has been residing.

4. As regards the contention of the Petitioner that before a person could be said to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Agriculturists Relief Act, he should not only be a person who ordinarily engages in agriculture in the area to which the Act has been extended at the time of the suit transaction, but also should be an agriculturist as defined in the Act at the time of the suit transaction. Though at first sight it looks as if no exception could be made in respect of the two requirements referred to above, it is clear that in certain cases the second condition laid down in explanation (b) of the definition of the word 'Agriculturist' need not be applied before a person could be said to be an agriculturist. For instance under Section 5 of the Agriculturists Relief Act, it has been provided that

'Whenever it is alleged at any stage of any suit or proceeding to which an agriculturist is a party that any transaction in issue entered into, at any time within a period of six years before this Act is extended to the local area concerned, by such agriculturist or the person, if any, through whom he claims was a transaction of such a nature that the rights and liabilities of the parties thereunder......the Court shall, notwithstanding anything contained in S. 92, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or in any other law for them time being in force......admit evidence of any oral agreement....'.

It will be noticed that this section refers to transaction which took place six years prior to the extension of the Agriculturists Relief Act. There is a similar provision in Section 8 of the Agriculturists Relief Act. It is thus clear that in some cases the Agriculturists Relief Act could not have been extended to the area in which at the time of the suit transaction the defendant was residing ordinarily engaged in agriculture. There is no conflict between Sections 5 and 8, Agriculturists Relief Act and the definition as given in Section 2 of that Act, since Section 2 begins by stating that 'In construing this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context'. In this case the suit transaction took place within six years from the date on which the Agriculturists Relief Act was extended to the village in which the defendant ordinarily engages himself in agriculture by virtue of Section 8 of the Enclaves Order referred to above.

5. The lower Court was, therefore, right in holding that the defendant is an agriculturist entitled to reliefs under the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act. The revision petition stands, therefore dismissed No order as to costs.

6. Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //