9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Application of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 to the decree. 2. Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge in amending the decree. 3. Interpretation of the decree as a final decree for sale. 4. Right to relief under Section 30 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934. 5. Discretion of the Judge under Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 to the Decree: The debtor applied for relief under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934, which came into force on 27th April 1935. The Act aimed to provide relief to agriculturists from indebtedness. The Subordinate Judge amended the decree by reducing interest rates and directing the principal money to be paid in twelve yearly installments. The Chief Court set aside this order, concluding that the decree did not fall within the types specified in Section 5 of the Act. However, the judgment emphasized that the words of a remedial statute must be construed to secure the relief intended by the statute. The decree was identified as a final decree for sale, and thus, the Act's provisions applied. 2. Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge in Amending the Decree: The creditor challenged the Subordinate Judge's jurisdiction to amend the decree under Section 115, Civil P.C. The Chief Court initially found that the Subordinate Judge acted without jurisdiction. However, the judgment clarified that the Subordinate Judge had the authority to amend the decree under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934, as the decree in question was a final decree for sale, which fell within the scope of the Act. 3. Interpretation of the Decree as a Final Decree for Sale: The judgment analyzed the nature of the decree, which was based on a compromise agreement. The decree declared the amount due and ordered payment as per the compromise. The compromise included provisions for the debtor to execute a sale deed to satisfy the decree money. The judgment concluded that the decree was a final decree for sale, as it involved the sale of property to satisfy the debt, and thus, fell within the types of decrees mentioned in the Relief Act. 4. Right to Relief under Section 30 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934: Section 30 of the Act limited the interest rate on loans taken before the Act came into force. The judgment affirmed that the debtor was entitled to relief under this section, as the decree was "passed on the basis of a loan." The Chief Court's oversight in not considering the modification of past interest from 1st January 1930 was corrected, affirming the debtor's right to reduced interest rates. 5. Discretion of the Judge under Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934: The High Court opined that Section 5 should not apply because the debtor had agreed to pay off the debt by executing a sale deed. The judgment refuted this, stating that the objective of the Relief Act was to provide relief from agreements, including those the applicant seeks to resile from. It emphasized that the discretion under Section 5 should be exercised to grant relief unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 11th January 1936, amending the decree of 4th July 1933, was restored. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs. The appellant was granted liberty to apply in the Court of the Civil Judge at Sitapur to address the situation arising from the execution of the sale deed and possession transfer. The judgment underscored the remedial nature of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934, and the necessity to interpret it to provide the intended relief to agriculturists.
|
