1963 (3) TMI 62 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, as amended in 1948.
2. Whether the judgment-debtors were agriculturists.
3. Applicability of the Amending Act and whether the compromise decree had "become final."
4. Whether the earlier compromise decree operated as res judicata.
5. Whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the Subordinate Judge's finding.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, as amended in 1948
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the respondents were agriculturists within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, and were entitled to a scaling down of the decree in O. S. No. 52 of 1941. The decree-holders appealed this decision, arguing that the Amending Act was not applicable because the compromise decree had "become final" under section 16(ii) of the Amending Act.

2. Whether the Judgment-Debtors Were Agriculturists
The Subordinate Judge initially found that the judgment-debtors were not agriculturists because they were a joint Hindu family owning an estate for which a peshkash of more than Rs. 500 was payable. However, the High Court disagreed, concluding that the properties taken by the sons of Narasimha Rao under the will were their separate properties and not ancestral properties. The High Court held that the peshkash payable by each son individually did not exceed Rs. 500, thus qualifying them as agriculturists under the Act. This was supported by the precedent in C.N. Arunachala v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar.

3. Applicability of the Amending Act and Whether the Compromise Decree Had "Become Final"
The appellants argued that the compromise decree was final and thus section 16(ii) of the Amending Act applied, barring the respondents from seeking relief. The High Court, however, held that section 16(iii) of the Amending Act applied, as the decree had not been fully executed or satisfied. The prevailing interpretation in the High Court supported this view, indicating that all money decrees not fully executed or satisfied before the commencement of the Amending Act were subject to its provisions.

4. Whether the Earlier Compromise Decree Operated as Res Judicata
The appellants contended that the earlier compromise decree operated as res judicata, preventing the respondents from raising the issue again. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that a compromise decree is not a decision by the court but an agreement between parties endorsed by the court. Therefore, it does not constitute res judicata. The respondents were entitled to take advantage of the amended law, which allowed for the re-opening of decrees that had not become final or fully executed.

5. Whether the High Court Was Correct in Interfering with the Subordinate Judge's Finding
The appellants argued that the High Court erred in interfering with the Subordinate Judge's finding that the respondents were not agriculturists. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was within its rights to call for evidence and draw its own conclusions. The High Court's actions were not an interference in revision with a finding of fact but an effort to reach a correct inference from the evidence.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the respondents were agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, as amended in 1948. The compromise decree did not operate as res judicata, and the High Court was correct in its interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.