LexPULAVARTHI VENKATA SUBBA RAO AND ORS. versus VALLURI JAGANNADHA RAO & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
PULAVARTHI VENKATA SUBBA RAO
AND ORS.
v.
VALLURI JAGA.NNADHA RAO & ORS.
(P. B. GAJE;<;DRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATIJl.I,AH and
j. C. SHAH jj.)
Relief to agriwlturiat.-Scali711J down of d'bl•-Compro-
mi.e d•.cree-Nature-Whelher can be scale</ down-Whether
re< judicata-Jfadras Agriculluri't. Relief (Amendment) Act,
1948 (Mad. 23 of 1!148), •· 16 (ii)-Madras Agriculturists
Relief Act, 1938 (Mad. 4 of 1938), s. 19.
A suit was filed in 1941 for the recovery of Rs. 50,000.
The respondents prayed for the scaling down of the amount
due from them under tho Madras Agriculturists Relief Act,
1938, on the ground that they were aiiriculturists. The suit
was compromised for Rs. 37 ,000/-. Some payments were also
made.
fn 1949, another application was made by the respondents
for the scaling down of the debt on the ground that they were
agriculturists and hence were entitled to the br.ncfits of the
Act of 1938 as amended in 19{8.
The contention of the
decree-holder was that the Amendiug Act'"" not applicable
in view of the provisions of s. 16 (ii) of the Amending Act as
the compromise decree had
becorr1c
final.
i\-loreo\'cr,
the
earlier compromise decree op...:ratcd as re.~ j 1tdir:'ll'L
Another
contention
\Vas
that
the judgment-dcbt0rs \Vere not agri-
culturi5ts as they \Vere a joint Hindu family o\vning an estate
for which a 1'"/tka•h of more than Rs. 500/- was payable.
The
trial court held that the decree was liable to be scaled down
in view of the provisions of the Amending . .\ct.
·rhc matter
\\'as taken to the
High Court in revision.
·rhc High Court
directed the trial court to take evidence and submit its finding
on the point ,,·hether the appellants \Vere agriculturists or not.
'fhe finding of the trial court \Va., that the judgrnent-<lebtors con.
stituted a joint Hindu family which vwned an estate flir which
peshkash of more than Rs. j00j- w8' payable and hence were
not agricultrists.
The lligh Court ca1ne to the conclt1sion that the eH\t
was not held jointly but i" definite shares. The pes/1ka•l1 iri
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
311
respect of the two villages constituting an estate could not be
aggregated. Under the circumstances, the peshkash paid by
the individual judgment-debtors did not exceed Rs. 500/- and
hence the judgment debtors were agriculturists. The High
Court also held that the compromise decree could not be re-
garded as final for purposes of s. 16 (ii) of the Amending Act,
and the principle of res judicata did not apply. lt was also
held that the judgment-debtors were entitled to have the decree
scaled down.
The appellants came to this Court by special
leave.
He/,d that the appeal had no merit and must fail. The
judgment-debtors were agriculturits and the peshkash paid by
them individually did not exceed Rs. 500/-.
Hence they were
entitled to get their debts scaled down.
He/,d also, that all decrees which had been executed and
satisfied before the commencement of the Amending Act in
January, 1949, were unaffected by the Amending Act, but all
decrees which were not final and which remained to be execut-
ed, either wholly or in part, were subject thereto. However,
the decree-holder was not to be required to refund any sum
which might have been paid or realized hy him. No distinction
was made between decrees passed after contest and decrees
paesed
on
compromise.:.
Both kinds of
decrees were
amenable to the provisions of
s. 19 (2)
of the Act of
1938 ands. 16 (ii) of the Amending Act of 1948. The case
was thus governed by s. 16 (iii) and not bys. 16 (ii).
Held also, that although the conduct of the respondents
in omitting to press the claim for reduction of the amount of
the claim on the first occasion was si~nificant> yet that did not
constitute res judicata, either statutory or constructive.
The
compromise decree was not a decision by the Court.
It was
the acceptance by the Court of something to which the parties
had agreed. The compromise decree merely set the seal of the
court on the agreement between the parties and the court did
not decide anything.
A decision of the court \Vas not implicit
in the co1npromise.
On~y a decision by the
court c·Juld be
res judicata, whether it be statutory under s. 11
of the Code
of Civil Procedure or constructive as a matter of public policy
on whir.h the entire doctrine re .ts.
1,,1e earlier derision could
not strictly be rc~ardExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.