LexV. RAMASWAMI AYYANGAR AND OTHERS versus T. N. V. KAILASA THEVAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1951 D. Slephnis v. NosiboUa. Chatulrasthhara AV'af]. 1951 March 5. 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [.1951] on rerord. As already pointed out, there has been no such error in the present case; on the other hand, it seems to us that. on both the previous occasions, the Chief Presidency Magistrate was right in holding that the accused was not guilt)' of any offence under sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act. The order of the High Court ·is set aside and that of the Chief Presidency Magistr:tte is restored. The accused will stand acquitted of the charge. Order set aside. Agent for the appellant : P. K. Chatteriee. Agent for the respondent : l. N. Shroff for P. K. Bose. V. RAMASWAMI AYYANGAR AND OTHERS fl. T. N. V. KAILASA THEVAR. [SAIYID FAZL Au, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MUKHERJEA and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JI.] Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938), ss. 7, 19-Joint debtors-Application for scaling down made by some only-Decree for full amount against ex parte defendants and for reduced amount against others-Legality and effect-Indivisibility of debt -Payment of full amount as scaled down-Whether extinguishes decree against all. Under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, a mort- gage decree can be scaled down in favour of some of the judgment debtors alone, while as regards the others it is kept intact. In a suit to enforce a mortgage executed by defendant No. 1 on his own behalf and on behalf of defendants Nos. 2 to 7, the defendant No. 1 remained ex parte, and the others contested the suit. A decree for Rs. 1,08,098 was passed by ~ trial court. The Madras Agriculturist' Relief Act, 1938, was passed during the pendenry of an appeal and cross appea~ and on the applica- tion of defendants Nos. 2 to 7 under the said Act the amount of the decree was scaled down to Rs. 49,255 so far as defendants Nos. 2 to 7 were concerned. So far as defendant No. 1 was coriccrned the decree for the full amount rcmainCd as it was. Defendant No. 1 thereupon applied for scaling down, but his S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 293 application was rejected. Defendants Nos. 2 to 7 dcopsitcd certain amounts and got their properties released. Defendant No. 1 deposited the balance of the amount that remained due under the decree as scaled down on the application of defendants Nos. 2 to 7, and prayed that full satisfaction of the decree may be recorded. · The Subordinate Judge rejected this application but the High Court, on appeal, held that defendant No. I was entitled to the benefit of the scaling down in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 7, as the mortgage debt was one and indivisible. On further appeal : Held, that the ratio dccidendi of the cases in which it was held that a purchaser of mortgaged properties was entitled to the bene- fit of a decree which has been scaled down, even diough the pur- chaser himself was not an agriculturist was not applicable to the present case. According to the plain provisions of the Act, there was no objection to a decree for a reduced amount being passed against an agriculturist debtor, while the same relief is not given to his co-debtors, and defendant No. 1 was not entitled to claim the benefit of ·the scaling down of the decreC-: debt in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 7. Judgment of the Madras High Court reversed. Ramiet v. Srinivasiah [(1940) 2M.L.J. 872] referred.to. Arunachalam Pillai v. Seetharam [(1941) I M.L.J. 561'!. Pachigola v. Karatam [1242) 1 M.L.J. 506], Subramaniam v. Ramchandm [ (1946) :?. M.L.J. 429] distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDIC'fION: : Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1950), from a judgment and order of the J1igh Court of Judicature at Madras dated 5th January, 1948, reversing an order of the District Judge of East Tanjore in aµ application under s. 47 and 0. XXI, r. 2, of the Civil Procedure Cpde. R. K. Kesava Aiyangar (T. K. Sundal'araman, with him) for the appellants. S. Ramachandra Aiyar for the respondant. 1951. March 5. The judgment of the Court was delivered by MuKHERJEA J.-This appeal is on ·behalf of the decree-holders in a mortgage suit and it is directed against a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated January 5, 1948, by 1951 v. RamasllHlm Ayyangar an., Others v. T. N. V.1'ailota T~vtll'. Milk!u1j1a J. 1951 V. Ramaswami Ayyatrgar and Otleers v. 7·, N. V. Kailtua Tkevar. 294 SUPR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.