PULAVARTI VENKATASUBBA RAO Vs. VALLURI JAGANNADHA RAO
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PULAVARTI VENKATASUBBA RAO
VALLURI JAGANNADHA RAO
Click here to view full 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.