ORDER
1. The petitioner m this revision petition is the plaintiff. He filed the suit (O. S. No. 157 of 1965) in the Court of the Munsiff. K. G. F., out of which this revision petition arises, for recovery of certain amount due to him. The suit was decreed ex parte on 15-12-1965. That decree was set aside in Mis. No. 13 of 1970 and the suit was restored. The defendant filed his written statement contending inter alia that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that it was barred by time in view of the Karnataka Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. 1966, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1966. which came into force in the year ,1969. A preliminary issue was raised, 'namely, 'whether the suit was maintainable'. On this issue, the Court below held that as the Karnataka Agriculturists' Relief Act. 1928, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1928' being repealed by the Act of 1966 and as the latter Act was struck down by this Court in D. M. Thippeswamy v. State of Mysore. ((1970) 1 Mys LJ 43) as unconstitutional, the Act of 1928 was not revived and the plaintiff therefore could not have the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 1928. In that view it held that the suit was barred by limitation and hence dismissed the same. At the time the plaintiff filed the suit the Act of 1928 was in force and under Section 24 of that Act a suit could have been brought under the extended period of limitation, namely, six years.
2. It is contended that, the Act of 1966 repealed the Act of 1928 and that was struck down with the result there is no repeal of the Act of 1928 and the provisions of that Act are in operation and therefore the Court below was not justified in dismissing the suit. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision in Venkatappa v. S. N. Venkateshaiah, (1971) 2 Mys LJ 348 = (AIR 1972 Mys 119). In that case, following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Mulchand Odhavji v. Rajkot Borough Municipality. : AIR1970SC685 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in C. M. Gopala Setty v. Channarayapatna Town Municipality. (1970) 1 Mys LJ 278, it was held that the effect of the Karnataka Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. 1966 (Act of 1966) being declared unconstitutional and struck down in Thippeswamy's case (1970) 1 Mys LJ 43 was that there was no Act by which the provisions of the pre-existing laws, i. e. Act of 1928, have been repealed and that there was no question of the earlier Act being revived when there was no repeal of that Act at all. In that decision it was also pointed out that the view taken in P. W. Rangaswamy v. Shah Krishnaji Valaji & Co.. (1971) 1 Mys LJ 350 was not in accordance with the principle laid down in the said two cases. As there was conflict of opinion on this point, the matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court in Rudre Gowda v. Angadi Chikkanna. (1972) 1 Mys LJ 310 = (AIR 1972 Mys 199). The Division Bench ruled that the decision of this Court in Thippeswamy's case that the Act of 1966 was unconstitutional had not the effect of reviving the Act of 1928, which was one Of the Acts repealed by Section 64 (2) of that Act. This decision, in my opinion, is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shaukat Hussain Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh. : [1975]1SCR429 . In that case the facts were these : Under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act (8 of 1955) the Government of Hyderabad abolished the inams and the inams vested in the Government. In accordance with that, the Government discontinued payment of 'Baithak' of Sendhi shops and tree tax under the wrong impression that the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act (8 of 1955) prohibited any such Payment On April 20. 1956 the Abolition Act was amended by Act 10 of 1956, by which the provisions relating to payment of compensation were superseded while those relating to vesting continued in force. The Government, therefore, issued a circular to the effect that all the amounts collected as land revenue from the erstwhile inam lands were to be kept in a suspense account. The Hyderabad Act 8 of 1955 as amended by Act 10 of 1956 was repealed by the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abolition of Inams Act (9 of 1967), repealing the earlier Act 8 of 1955. The Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Act 9 of 1967. The Question for consideration was whether, the Act 8 of 1955 as amended by Act 10 of 1956 continued to exist although the repealing Act 9 of 1967 was struck down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Dealing with that question, the Supreme Court held that what the High Court of Andhra Pradesh implied by declaring Act 9 of 1967 void was that it was non est. and further held that the provisions of Act 8 of 1955 as amended by Act 10 of 1956 could not be said to have been repealed at all and therefore they were in existence. In view of this decision, the decision in Rudre Gowda's case (AIR 1972 Mys 199) is not in accordance with law and the Act of 1928 is in existence. Therefore, the learned Munsiff was not justified in dismissing the suit.
3. In the result, I allow this revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the Munsiff. with a direction to take the case on his file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
No costs.
4. Revision allowed.