Viswanatha Pandaram vs Savarimuthu Udayar

Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.—The contention of the appellant in this case is that the debtors, having had already benefits of the repealed Pudukottai Regulation, are not entitled once again to claim any benefit of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act extended to Pudukottai State after its merger. The existing laws in the Pudukottai State were in force only upto passing of the Madras Merged States (Laws) Act, XXXV of 1949. C1. (a) of S. 6 (1) of the Merged States Act is to the effect:

The repeal by S. 5 of this Act of any our responding law in force in any merged State immediately before the commencement of this Act shall not affect-(a) the previous operation of any such law."

The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as the previous operation of the law since repealed had taken effect in that the debt due from the respondent was scaled down, scaling down of the debt once again cannot be effected, and that the operation of the previous law having taken effect in this manner the same cannot be affected by the application of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act to the State under the saving clause of the Madras Merged States (Laws) Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon a passage occurring in Alagappa v. Nchiappa I.L.R, 1053 Mad. 996 at 1008=66 L.W. 1066. Vol. 69-52 This is a decision in which the question as to how far an agriculturist debtor could claim relief over again under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act extended to the Pudukottai State came up for consideration. In the judgment the following passage occurs:

It may be asked in what cases the saving provision embodied in S. 6 (1) (a)of the Merged States Act would apply. That would apply in cases in which relief was granted under the Pudukottai Regulation. Nothing in Madras Act IV of 1938 could deprive the debtor of that relief. That provision only means that the repeal of the Pudukottai Regulation would not have the effect of nullifying the scaling down made under the prior regulation."

From this paragraph the learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to infer that the order, scaling down the debt passed earlier under the Pudukottai Regulation cannot now be affected, and that that order has become final by virtue of the saving C1. (a) of S. 6 (1) of the Merged States Act. I do not think that the passage relied upon by the learned Counsel warrants the inference he seeks to draw there from. What the saving clause seeks to provide is that any benefits that might have been derived by the parties, either they be debtors or creditors under the Pudukottai regulation, cannot be taken away by reason of the application of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act under the Madras Merged States Act. That is to say, whatever benefits that might have been derived either by an agriculturist debtor or his creditor under the Pudukottai Regulation, would remain unaffected and would not be nullified or taken away from the parties if they seek to obtain relief once again under the extended Madras Agriculturists Relief Act to the Merged State. In this view it must be stated that the interpretation given by the passage occurring in Alagappa v. Nchiappa I.L.R, 1053 Mad . 996 at 1008=66 L.W. 1066. This is a decision in which the question. This appeal fails and is dismissed to the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Leave refused .