Skip to content


Vasireddi Pitchayya Vs. Lavu Subbayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad611; (1941)1MLJ609
AppellantVasireddi Pitchayya
RespondentLavu Subbayya
Excerpt:
- .....that a firm is not a person under the definition in section 3 (1) of the act and therefore a debt incurred by a firm is not one which can be scaled down and if that debt is due from an agriculturist, he cannot get the benefits of the act because, the debt was not incurred by him qua agriculturist. we are unable to accept this reasoning. a debt incurred by a partnership is really a debt incurred by the partners for which each of them is liable. this is recognised by the decree which makes the appellant and his partners personally liable. the appellant is therefore a judgment-debtor with a liability and if, as appears to be the case, he is an agriculturist, he is entitled to apply under sections 19 and 20. the lower court has not gone into the questions arising out of the process of.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. This appeal has been treated as a revision petition and the appellant will pay the deficient court-fee.

2. The appellant applied under Sections 19 and 20 of Madras Act IV 1938 to scale of down a decree. The decree in question was based on a debt due by the appellant and others as members of a firm and the cause title treats the firm as the first defendant and the managing partners as defendants 2 to 9. The appellant is the seventh defendant. The lower Court has rejected the application on the ground that a firm is not a person under the definition in Section 3 (1) of the Act and therefore a debt incurred by a firm is not one which can be scaled down and if that debt is due from an agriculturist, he cannot get the benefits of the Act because, the debt was not incurred by him qua agriculturist. We are unable to accept this reasoning. A debt incurred by a partnership is really a debt incurred by the partners for which each of them is liable. This is recognised by the decree which makes the appellant and his partners personally liable. The appellant is therefore a judgment-debtor with a liability and if, as appears to be the case, he is an agriculturist, he is entitled to apply under Sections 19 and 20. The lower Court has not gone into the questions arising out of the process of scaling down. We are informed that the whole of this application will become unnecessary if the appeal now pending against another order recording satisfaction of the decree is dismissed.

3. This appeal treated as a revision petition is allowed with costs and the application is remanded to the lower court for disposal. The lower court will keep the application pending until orders have been passed on the pending appeal (C. M. A. No. 225 of 1939) and will dispose of it after judgment therein.


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