9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (10) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued for recovery of ₹ 10000 and interest due from defendants 1 and 2 (father and son) under a registered promissory note for ₹ 20,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of the 3rd defendant and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff. The defendants contended that they were agriculturists within the definition of the term in Act V of 1954 (Madras) and that the suit filed in contravention of Section 3 of the Act should be dismissed. Issue No. 1 which dealt with this question was tried as a preliminary issue and the court below came to the conclusion that the defendants were agriculturists. The suit was accordingly dismissed and the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 3. The two points raised on behalf of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 acres, the whole area covered by Ext. B1 was actually gifted. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff shows that this allegation is not correct. The kanom amount under Ext. Bl was ₹ 50/-and the proportionate amount made chargeable on the property gifted was only ₹ 45/-. The purapad under Ext. Bl was also apportioned under Ext. Al. It is therefore clear that only a part of the area was demised under the gift deed. This leaves a balance of 34 acres out of which 19 acres have been subleased under Exts. B6 and B7. The first defendant deposed that he still had 15 acres in his possession. The plaintiff has no case that anything more than 19 acres has been sub-leased by the first defendant. Pw. 1 admitted that he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a debt shall be made and no suit or application for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of a debt shall be instituted or made, against any agriculturist in any civil or revenue court before the expiry of a year from the date of commencement of this Act. Explanation I. -- 'Suit' does not include a claim to a set-off made in a suit instituted by art agriculturist. Explanation II. -- Where a debt is payable by an agriculturist jointly or jointly and severally with a non-agriculturist, no suit or application of the nature mentioned in this section, shall be instituted or made either against the non-agriculturist or agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or the respondent or by all the defendants or all the respondents, as the case may be, the stay effected by Sub-section (1) in a suit or application shall be dissolved and the suit or application shall be proceeded with from the stage which had been reached when further proceedings in the suit or the application were stayed. (3) In the case of suits or applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3, instituted or made against an agriculturist, the provisions of the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXIV of 1949), or of Section 54 or Section 55 of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1951 (Madras Act XXXIII of 1951) shall not have effect in so far as the said provisions are inconsistent with the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t agriculturists and that such suits had to be stayed under Section 4 if the plaintiffs bad instituted such suits in the bona fide belief that the defendants were not agriculturists. The grounds relied on in arriving at this conclusion were that Section 3 would apply only if the plaint disclosed that the defendant was an agriculturist, that there was no provision in the Act for dismissal of a suit filed in contravention of Section 3 and that Section 4 was couched in such general terms as to include suits filed during the period when the Act was in force, i.e., for one year from 25-2-1954. We are unable to uphold this view. What Section 3 provides is that no suit for the recovery of a debt shall be instituted ..... . This in our op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Section 4 thus contemplates further proceedings after the commencement of the Act. In referring to suits and applications, the provision is suits and applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3 and not suits and applications instituted or made in contravention of Section 3. Section 4 does not therefore justify the conclusion that it applies to suits instituted after Act V of 1954 came into force. We may in this connection observe that the conclusion reached by us is in consonance with the decision of the Madras High Court in Palani-chami Chettiar v. Reliance Bank of India, Limited, 11956-2 Mad LJ I, which Sankaran, J., declined to follow. In our opinion 1957 Ker LT 239 : ((S) AIR 1957 Kerala 41), does not lay down the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
