PULAVARTI VENKATASUBBA RAO Vs. VALLURI JAGANNADHA RAO
LAWS(APH)-1955-11-20
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 02,1955

PULAVARTI VENKATASUBBA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
VALLURI JAGANNADHA RAO Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANGARAJU V. VARAHALAMMA [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAPALLI VENKATARATNAM VS. MERLA SESHAMMA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Satyanarayana Raju, J. - (1.)This is an application under Article 133 of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment in C.R.P. No. 656 of 1950.
(2.)The Civil Revision Petition had been preferred against an order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur in I. A. No. 279 of 1949, an application filed by the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 52 of 1941 to scale down the decree passed against them, under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, pleading that they are agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the said Act as amended by Madras Act XXIII of 1948. The decree-holders contended inter alia that the judgment-debtors could not go behind the compromise decree which was arrived at on the basis that they are not agriculturists and that as the family possessed villages in respect whereof they are paying a peishcush of more than Rs. 500-they would not be agriculturists within the meaning of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge of Narasapur held that notwithstanding the compromise decree, the respondents (judgment-debtors) are entitled to have the said decree scaled down by reason of the Amending Act XXIII of 1948. Having decided this as a preliminary point, he posted LA. No. 279 of 1949 for evidence on the question as to whether the judgment-debtors are agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the Act. The decree-holders filed the above mentioned revision petition against the finding of the Subordinate Judge on the preliminary point.
(3.)The revision petition came up for hearing before Satyanarayana Rao and Krishnaswami Naidu, JJ., who by their order, dated 2Oth August, 1952, called for a finding from the lower Court on the question as to whether the judgment-debtors are agriculturists. On the 17th of December, 1952, the Subordinate Judge submitted a finding to the effect that judgment-debtors I and 2 and their father are not agriculturists on the ground that they fomed an undivided family and that the family paid peishcush in respect of the villages in their possession of an amount exceeding Rs., 500.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.