Appeal No 80 of 1962
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 19 1957 of the Madras High Court in CM Appeal No 303 of 1956
A V Viswanatha Sastri V Ratnam and R Ganapathy Iyer for the appellant
GS Pathak and R Thiagarajan for the respondent
July 24 1964
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J
This appeal by certificate raises the question whether a decree obtained in a suit to enforce a debt incurred after the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act 1938 Act 4 of 1938 hereinafter called the Parent Act
came into force could be scaled down under section 13 of the Parent Act
The facts are as follows On February 15 1964 the appellant and 4 others executed a mortgage deed in favour of Kaverlal Chordia for a sum of Rs 200000 payable after three years with interest at 9 per cent
per annum
On January 24 1946 the mortgagee assigned the said mortgage 308 in favour of the respondent
Certain payments towards principal and interest were made thereunder
On February 28 1950 the assignee mortgagee ie the respondent filed a suit OS No 55 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Nilgiris Ootacamund for the recovery of Rs 198487 8 0 made up of Rs 150000 for the balance of the principal and Rs 48487 8 0 for interest due on tile mortgage
The suit ended in a compromise dated December 21 1950 under which a decree was passed for Rs 150000 on account of principal with interest and further interest at 9 per cent
per annum and costs subject to some concessions being shown in the event of payments being made in certain specified instalments
Thereafter certain payments were made towards the decree
In due course the respondent filed IA No 382 of 1953 for the passing of a final decree
On June 24 1955 the appellant filed OP No 24 of 1955 for scaling down the debt
The respondent inter alia contended in his objections filed against the said application that as the debt sought to be scaled down was incurred subsequent to March 22 1938 which is the date of the commencement of the Parent Act
the decree could not be scaled down under section 192 of the Parent Act
The learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objection and held by his order dated August 10 1956
that the decree was liable to be scaled down in terms of section 13 of the Parent Act
He accordingly scaled down the decree debt
On appeal a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that as the statutory right to have the interest scaled down was not put forward before the consent decree was passed the decree could not be scaled down at the stage of the final decree proceedings
It further held that section 192 of the Parent Act only applied to debts payable at the commencement of the aid Act and therefore the application for scaling down the decree was not maintainable
In the result it set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the petition for scaling down the debt
Hence the present appeal
Mr A V Viswanatha Sastri learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appellant s claim under section 192 of the Parent Act but put it under section 13 of the said Act
309 He took us through the relevant provisions of the Parent Act which according to him disclose the legislative policy undermining the sacrosanctity of decrees and pressed on us to hold on a scrutiny of the provisions of section 13 of the Parent Act in the light of the said policy that the decree made in respect of a debt incurred after the Parent Act came into force was liable to be scaled down thereunder
Mr Pathak learned counsel for the respondent makes a distinction between the substantive and procedural pro visions and contends that the Parent Act does not make any provision for scaling down decrees made in respect of debts incurred after the said Act came into force
The general scheme of the Parent Act gathered therefrom may be briefly stated thus
The main object of the Parent Act was to give relief to agriculturists
Debt has been defined in section 3 iii of the Parent Act as any liability in cash or kind whether secured or unsecured due from an agriculturist whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise
This definition is rather com prehensive it takes in secured unsecured and decree debts due from an agriculturist
Section 7 of the Parent Act declares that a debt so defined has to be scaled down in the manner prescribed by the said Act
Section 8 provides the mode of scaling down debts incurred before 1932 and section 9 the debts incurred after 1932 but before March 22 1938 and section 13 deals with the scaling down of debts incurred after the commencement of the Parent Act
The relief granted under the said Act varies with the date of the debt depending upon whether it falls under one or other of the said three periods
While sections 7 8 9 and 13 give the principles for scaling down a debt section 19 provides the machinery for scaling down
Section 19 of the Parent Act
as amended in 1948 reads 1 Where before the commencement of this Act a court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt it shall on the application of any judgment debtor who is an agriculturist apply the provisions of this Act to such decree 310 and shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 amena the decree accordingly or enter satisfaction
as the case may be 2 The provisions of subsection 1
shall also apply to cases where after the commencement of this Act a Court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt payable at such commencement
It may be mentioned that the second clause was inserted by the Amending Act of 1948
Before the amendment there was a conflict of view on the question whether section 191 could be invoked in amending a decree passed after the commencement of the Parent Act in respect of a debt incurred before the said Act
Sub section 2 made the position clear and declared that it could be done
The position therefore is that in the case of debts other than decree debts the scaling down process will have to be resorted to in an appropriate proceeding taken in respect of the debt and in the case of decrees in respect of debts incurred before the Parent Act whether made before or after the said Act by filing an application under section 191 or 2 of the Board Act as the case may be But section 19 on its express terms does not permit the filing of an application for amending a decree by scaling down a debt incurred after the Parent Act came into force
Doubtless as Mr Viswanatha Sastri contents the Parent Act to some extent undermines the sanctity of decrees but that is to implement the policy of the Legislature to give relief to agriculturists over burdened with debts
But a Court particularly in the case of an expropriatory measure like the Act cannot rely upon the supposed policy of the Legislature and extend the scope of the relief given to agiculturists by analogy
The scope of the relief shall necessarily be confined to that given by the Act expressly or by necessary implication
A fair reading of sub sections 1 and 2 of section 19 of the Parent Act disclose beyond any reasonable doubt that the Legislature does not provide thereunder any machinery for reopening a decree made in respect of a debt incurred after the Act came into force
311 Realizing this difficulty  Mr Viswanatha Sastri relied upon the provisions of section 13 itself and contends that the said section provides in the case of debts incurred after the Parent Act came into force both for the substantive relief as well as for the machinery to give the said relief
The said section reads In any proceeding for recovery of a debt the Court shall scale down all interest due on any debt incurred by an agriculturist after the commencement of this Act so as not to exceed a sum calculated at 6 14 per cent
per annum simple interest    The Government by notification reduced the rates of interest to 5 12 per cent per annum with effect from July 29 1947
Let us scrutinize the provisions of the section in the light of the arguments advanced
Learned counsel asks us to read the words decree debt instead of debt in section 13 of the Parent Act for debt is defined to take in a decree debt and by so reading he contends in any proceeding which according to him includes a final decree application the court shall scale down all interest in the manner prescribed thereunder
It is further argued that final decree proceedings are only proceedings in a suit and therefore the word recovery in the sub section is appropriate in the context of a decree debt
This argument if accepted disturbs the entire scheme of the Parent Act
Section 13 is one of the group of sections viz sections 8 9 and 13 dealing with the principles of scaling down in a proceeding for the recovery of a debt
But where a decree is to be amended the Act has taken care to provide expressly for the amendment of the decree
If the Legislature intended to provide for the amendment of decrees even in cases falling under section 13 it would have added another appropriate clause in section 19
The absence of any such clause indicates an intention that in cases of debts comprehended by section 13 the Legislature gives only a limited relief expressly thereunder
It is said so far as the reopening of decrees after the Parent Act came into force is concerned whether in respect of 312 debts incurred before or after the said Act there cannot possibly be a justification for a difference in the manner of their treatment
A plausible reason can be discerned for this legislative distinction between debts incurred before the Act and those incurred after the Act for in the former when the debts were incurred the Act was not in existence and as the debtors could not have anticipated the provisions of the Act they were given the summary remedy but the agriculturists who incurred debts after the Parent Act with open eyes were denied the same while in the former they were allowed to reopen decrees made in respect of the said debts before or after the Act in the latter they could claim relief only in an appropriate proceeding before the decree was made and that too was confined to the limited relief in regard to the rate of interest provided thereunder
The difference in the treatment of the two categories of decrees was brought about by sub section 2 of section 19 added by a later amendment
Whatever may be the reason for the difference we cannot extend the scope of section 13 by analogy or by stretching the meaning of the words proceeding and recovery
Reliance is placed upon section 13 A of the Parent Act which reads Where a debt is incurred by a reason who would be an agriculturist as defined in section 3ii but for the operation of proviso B or proviso C to that section the rate of interest applicable to the debt shall be the rate applicable to it under the law custom contract or decree of Court under which the debt arises or the rate applicable to an agriculturist under section 13 whichever rate is less On the basis of this section a contention is raised that sections 13 and 13A relate to the same subject matter with the difference that while section 13 applies to agriculturists who incurred debts after the Parent Act came into force section 13A applies to persons who would be agriculturists but for the provisos B and C of section 1 ii in respect of debts in curred after the Act and as a fair reading of section 13 A indi cates that it applies to decrees made in regard to debts in 313 curred after the Act it must be interpreted reasonably that section 13 also applies to such decrees
Mr Pathak learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that section 13 A only applies to pre Act debts as section 7 which declares the scheme of scaling down of debts applies only to pre Act debts and the only exception to it is section 13 A Be that as it may we cannot construe section 13 with the aid of section 13 A which was introduced by the Amending Act 23 of 1948
This appeal does not call for an interpretation of section 13 A of the Act and we shall not express any opinion thereon
The legal position may be briefly stated thus
Section 7 8 9 and 13 form a group of sections providing the principles of scaling down of debts incurred by agricul turists under different situations
A debt can be scaled down in an appropriate proceeding taken in respect of the same
But in the case of debts that have ripened into decrees section 191 and 2 prescribe a special procedure for reopening the decree only in respect of debts incurred before the Parent Act
The Parent Act does not provide for the reopening of decrees made in respect of debts incurred after it came into force and for understandable reasons the relief in respect of such decrees is specifically confined only to a concession in the rate of interest
For the foregoing reasons we hold that the order of the High Court is correct 
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs


Summary:
The respondent who was the assignee mortgagee of a mortgage deed executed on February 15 1945 by the appellant for a certain sum payable with interest filed a suit for the recovery of the sum with Interest
The suit ended in a compromise under which a decree was passed and certain payments were made towards the decree
In due course the respondent moved for the passing of a final decree
The appellant applied for scaling down of the debt under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act
The respondent inter alia contended in his objections filed against this application that as the debt sought to be scaled down was incurred subsequent to the date of commencement of the Act the decree could not be scaled down under section 192 of the 307 Act
The Subordinate Judge overruled the objection and held that the debt was liable to be scaled down in terms of section 13 of the Act
On appeal the High Court held that as the statutory right to have the interest scaled down was not put forward before the consent decree was passed the decree could not be scaled down at the stage of the final decree R proceedings
It further held that section 192 of the Act only applied to debts payable at the commencement of the Act and therefore the application for scaling down the decree was not maintainable
On appeal by certificate Held Sections 7 8 9 and 13 form a group of sections providing the principles of scaling down of debts incurred by agriculturists under different situations
A debt can be scaled down in an appropriate proceeding taken in respect of the same
But in case of debts that have ripened into decrees section 191 and 2 prescribe a special procedure for reopening the decree only in respect of debts incurred before the Act
The Madras Agriculturists Relief Act does not provide for the reopening of decrees made in respect of debts incurred after it came into force and for understandable reasons the relief in respect of such decrees is specifically confined only to a concession in the rate of interest