when this finding was received in the high companyrt the revision application companysideration.
in that suit an application was made by the respondents claiming to be agriculturists for the scaling down of the amount.
on february 21 1949 the judgment debtors made anumberher application in the suit interim application number 279 of 1949 for scaling down the decretal amount on the ground that they were agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the act as amended in 1948.
appeal from the judgment and order dated april 6 1955 of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh at guntur in c. r. p. number 656 of 1950.
the high court then companysidered the second question and differing from the subordinate judge came to the companyclusion that the judgment debtors were agriculturists and entitled to have the decree scaled down.
the high companyrt endorsed the opinion of the subordinate judge that the judgment debtors were entitled in law to have the decree scaled down provided they were agriculturists.
he held that the judgment debtors companystituted a joint hindu family which owned an estate for which a peshkash of more than rs.
narasimha rao died on may 17 1943 and jagannadha rao ii and satyanarayanamurthi became entitled to a half share each in the three fifth share in pedamamidipalli village in addition to the half share in kalagampudi.
the suit however ended in a companypromise decree for rs.
it was also provided that if his two sons wished to divide the property the elder son srivatsankara rao was to take kalagampudi and the younger son the other village.
the family it is admitted owned two villages namely kalagampudi and pedamamidipalli which were an estate as defined in the madras estates land act.
on february 18 1941 narasimha rao executed a sale deed exh.
ii of s. 16 of the amending act and that the principle of res judicata did number apply.
by that will he gave a life estate in the two villages to his two sons valluri srivatsankara rao and valluri narasimha rao and an absolute estate to such of the sons of these two as might be living at the termination of each of the life estates respectively.
the two sons divided the properties in which they were given life estates vide exhibit b i dated june 14 1911.
the judgment debtors claimed that there was a partition between the two sons of narasimha rao in 1946.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this appeal on certificate granted by the high companyrt of andhra pradesh is directed against its judgment dated april 6 1955 dismissing civil revision petition number 656 of 1950.
a preliminary order was made by the high court directing the subordinate judges to take evidence and to submit his finding on this point and the parties were to be given an opportunity to object to the finding after it was received.
a 4 dated april 24 1940.
the plaintiffs in the case denied that the defendants were agriculturists.
the peshkash was then apportioned between the two villages and rs.
a 17 .
after the death of shrivatsankara rao in 1936 the two villages were separately registered.
483 12 10 was fixed as peshkash for pedamamidipalli village and rs.
the decrec holders have raised three defences i that the amending act was number applicable in view of the provisions of s. 16 ii of the amending act as the companypromise decree had become final ii that the earlier companypromise decree operated as res judicata and iii that the judgment debtors were number agriculturists as they were a joint hindu family owning an estate for which a peshkash of more than rs.
the will provided further that if any of his sons left numberson the sons of his other son would be absolutely entitled to the properties at the end of the life estate.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 17 of 1959.
the subordinate judge after recording the evidence submitted his finding on december 17 1952.
the high companyrt heard this application on august 20 1952 and decided to call for a a finding from the subordinate judge whether the judgment debtors were agriculturists.
pedamamidipalli was registered in the name of narasimha rao and kalagampudi in the name of his sons.
500/ was payable.
the decree holders have appealed.
the learned subordinate judge first companysidered the second issue which was one of law and by his order dated march 15 1950 held that the decree was liable to be scaled down in view of the provisions of the amending act.
he then set down the first issue for trial and posted the case for evidence on the question whether the judgment debtors were agriculturists.
srivatsankara rao died on december 15 1936 without leaving a son and jagannadha rao ii and satyanarayanamurthi the two sons of narasimha rao became absolutely entitled to kalagampudi in equal shares.
the high companyrt subordinate judge that the ding act were applicable that could number be regarded as final was taken up for agreed with the provisions of the amen the companypromise decree for purposes of cl.
500/ was payable and were thus number agriculturists.
srivatsankara rao took kalagampudi and narasimha rao took pedamamidipalli.
that suit was o. s. number 52 of 1941.
50000 odd in 1941 against the family.
the decree holders meanwhile filed an application for revision c. r. p. number 656 of 1950 on april 28 1950.
37000/ on august 23 1945 as against the claim for rs.
the high companyrt held that the respondents were agriculturists within the madras agriculturists relief act 1938 called for brevity the act and were entitled to a scaling down of the decree in s. number 52 of 1941 dated august 27 1945.
march 13.
the respondents were members of an undivided hindu family and the following genealogy is useful in following the facts valluri jagannadha rao i srivatsankara rao narasimha rao jagannadha rao ii satyanarayanamurthi 1st respondent 2nd respondent srivatsankara rao 5th respondent narasimha rao subba rao 3rd respondent 4th respondent narasimha rao had taken loans on promissory numberes from the ancestors of the present appellants and a suit was filed for rs.
we will number give the facts relevant to the present appeal.
50964 1 9.
satyanarayan for the respondents.
jagannadha rao i executed a will in respect of these and other properties on march 20 1902 exh.
a 57 in respect of two fifth share in pedamamidipalli village in favour of subhadradevi his daughter.
the decree holders are the appellants before us.
narsaraju advocate general andhra pradesh and t. v. r. tatachari for the appellants.
the villages belonged to valluri jagannadha rao 1 the original holder and were his self acquired properties.
the subordinate judge narsapur before whom the application was made framed two issues as follows whether the petitioners are agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the act and whether the present petition is barred under s. 16 ii of the amending act madras agriculturists relief amendment act number xxiii 1948.
