T.N.V. Kailasa Thevar vs V. Ramaswami Ayyangar And Ors. on 12 December, 1947
7. We have perused the entire records and heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, the learned Counsel for Valliammai Achi, and Mr. Natesan, the learned Counsel for Soundarapandian Chetttiar the assignee from the puisne mortgagee, have argued the case fully and fairly. There is no dispute by Mr. R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar that full satisfaction was rightly entered in E.A. No. 703 of 1953 filed by the mortgagor Ramachandra Iyer, as the entire scaled down amount due by that individual had been paid by Soundarapandian Chettiar. The contest by Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar centred round the full satisfaction entered in E.A. No. 641 of 1953, filed by Soundarapandian Chettiar, the assignee from the puisne mortgagee, who was liable to pay the unsealed amount. Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar urged that it was unheard of to enter full satisfaction regarding this unsealed decree when admittedly the difference between Rs. 20, 409-14-0, covered by the unsealed amount, and Rs. 17,822-4 o, covered by the scaled down amount, had not been paid. When we asked Mr. Natesan under what law or rule he claimed full satisfaction to be entered when there had been no satisfaction regarding this amount covered by the difference, he said that, as a matter of fact, the difference had not been paid, but, as a matter of law, it must be deemed to have been wiped out. According to him, when a decree is passed by a Court for the scaled down amount against an agriculturist judgment debtor, and for the unsealed down amount against the non-agriculturist judgment debtor, but the property is wholly owned by the agriculturist judgment debtor, the moment the entire amount due by the agriculturist judgment-debtor is paid, the entire property stands redeemed, and the liability for the difference due under the unsealed amount is automatically wiped out. He relied for this extraordinary proposition on a ruling of a Bench of this Court in Subrahmaniam Chettiar v. Ramachandra Reddiar (1946) 2 M.L.J. 429; Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar pointed out, quite rightly that this ruling went on the basis of an old line of cases which ended with the Bench ruling in Kailasa Thevar v. Ramaswami Ayyangar (1948) 2 M.L.J. 28, which was reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal in Ramaswami Ayyangar v. Kailasa Thevar . Natesan ingeniously argued that the Supreme Court case could be distinguished from the present case. According to him, if, in the same property, different mortgagors have got different, and separable interests, and some of them are agriculturists and some of them are non-agriculturists, and a decree for the scaled down amount is passed against the agriculturists and for the unscaled amounts against the non-agriculturists, then the decree-holder can execute the decree for the saied-down amount against the agriculturists, and for the unscaled amount against the non-agriculturists, but that, in a case like this, where the entire ownership vested in one man, Ramachandra Iyer, that rule would not apply, and the difference between the unsealed and scaled amounts would be wiped out the moment the scaled down amount was paid by the owner, the mortgagor. To illustrate the point more clearly, this is what he says. Suppose a house is owned by five brothers, one of whom is a Judge paying income-tax, disqualifying him from the benefit of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, another is a trader paying sales-tax, disqualifying him from the benefit of the Madras Agriclturists Relief Act, the third is a house owner paying property-tax, disqualifying him from the benefit of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, the fourth is an agriculturists entitled to the benefit of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, and the last is an unemployed man not entitled to the benefit of the Madras Agricultur'sts Relief Act then a decree for the scaled down amount will be passed against the fourth and a decree for the unsealed amount will be passed against the other four and the agriculturist judgment-debtor can get his 1/5th interest freed from the liability on payment of the scaled down amount; but the other four can get their 1/5th interest each freed only by paying the unsealed amount. But, Mr. Natesan said that this is only confined to this peculiar set of circumstances, and that it will not apply to a case, like ours, where the entire property is owned by the agriculturist judgment-debtor and the non-agriculturist judgment-debtor is only a puisne mortgagee against whom the original mortgagee could not proceed personally, or even bring a suit for redemption.