Jaganmohan Reddy, J.:— The common question in these two revision petitions is whether the provisions of the Hyderabad Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act III of 1349-F. relating to the maintainability of a revision to the Government are available to the petitioner after the repeal of this Act by section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, or whether these revision petitions are maintainable under section 91 of the latter Act. Both these revisions have been referred to a Bench by our learned brother, Seshachalapathi, J., having regard to the importance of the contentions raised before him.
2. The facts in C.R.P No. 506 of 1957 are: The respondent instituted a suit for redemption of mortgage by him in 1944 in favour of Gollapalli Lingam, the petitioner, and that possession of the land was also transferred to him. It was contended that the mortgagee in possession had realised more than the mortgage money from the yield of the land and according to the terms of the mortgage the respondent was entitled to claim redemption at any time on payment of the money. The mortgage amount having been already discharged, the respondent claimed possession of the land. The petitioner, while admitting ??? execution of the document, averred that it was not a mortgage, but a lease ??? 20 years at the rate of Rs. 5 per year and consequently, according to him, ??? transaction was not a mortgage. The Collector of Karimnagar, who was ??? of the matter under the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation ??? held that according to the terms of the document, there can be no doubt at the transaction was a mortgage and no oral evidence could be adduced to ??? the terms of a written document under the provisions of the Evidence ???. The petitioner had set up a concluded sale, but the document produced support of it being an unregistered one, it was held to be inadmissible in ???. At any rate, the transaction of sale, if any, could only be effected cording to the law in force after permission is obtained from the Revenue Department and this permission had not been obtained. Against this decision ??? the Collector, an appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue, presumably under the provisions of the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act. ??? was contended that section 8 of the Hyderabad Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act is no longer applicable having regard to the repeal of has Act by section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ??? contention was negatived by the Board of Revenue which dismissed the appeal.
3. In the second revision petition (C.R.P No. 776 of 1957) the respondent claimed to have mortgaged her land S. No. 329 to the petitioner for a very small consideration in 1325-F. and again in 1330-F. and stated that the petitioner had realised the full amount of the mortgage. The petitioner denied the title of the plaintiff and raised the plea of the suit being barred by limitation. It was, further mentioned that the District Court had issued a permanent injunction against the respondent on 30th August, 1954, with respect to the same land. The Collector held that the suit was not barred by time and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction till the mortgage was redeemed. In the result it was found that the petitioner had realised the entire amount of the mortgage and in this view it was held that the mortgage was redeemed. An appeal to the Board of Revenue was unsuccessful.
4. The petitioners contend that these revision petitions have been filed under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, which is similiar to the provisions contained in section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure while the respondents urge that having regard to section 103, which, though repealed the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act III of 1349-F. (hereinafter called Act III of 1349-F.) by its saving provisions saves the remedies, available under the repealed Act. It may be mentioned that under section 20 of Act III of 1349-F. the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is excluded and under section 19, the provisions of Chapter X and XI of the Land Revenue Act VIII of 1317-F. have been made applicable, as far as may be, to proceedings before the Revenue Officers. Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Act provides for appeals, revision and reviews and it prescribes the limitation as also the power of the appellate authority. Under section 166(b) the Government or any revenue authority not inferior in rank to a Taluqdar or Nazim of Survey, Settlement or Land Records have been vested with the revision power to call for records and to pass such order as they think fit, provided that no order ??? decision affecting the rights of present parties shall be modified or ??? unless all the parties are summoned and their objections heard. Several ??? authorities are also vested with powers with which we are not concerned.
5. It is indisputable that under Act III of 1349-F. matters ??? pertaining alienation of land by certain agricultural classes have been placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. The civil Courts have been barred and so much so section 21 enjoins that every civil Court which passed a judgment or order involving permanent alienation or mortgage or lease the land of a member of an agricultural class, shall send to the Taluqdar (Collector) a copy of such judgment or order and if it appears to the Taluqdar that any civil Court has passed a decree or order contrary to any of the provisions of the Act he may file a revision application in the appellate Court and when the Court finds that such decree or order is contrary to the provisions ??? the Act, it shall alter it so as to make it consistent with the Act. Such revision application shall be made within six months of the date upon which the Taluqdar is informed of such decree or order. If the rights which are the subject-matter of dispute in these revision petitions are governed by the provisions of Act III of 1349-F., notwithstanding its repeal by section 103, then without doubt these revision petitions are not maintainable and must be dismissed. The question whether the provisions of the aforesaid Act III of 1349-F. save the rights accrued prior to the repeal of the Act would depend upon section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Section 103 is in the following terms:
“103. (1) The Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act (III of 1349 F.) and the Hyderabad Asami Shikmis Act (I of 1354-F.), are hereby repealed:
Provided that any appointment, rule, order, notification or proclamation made or issued, lease, right or liability granted, fixed, acquired or incurred, and any other thing under either of the Act repealed hereby shall, in so far as it is not in-consistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been respectively made, issued, granted, fixed, acquired, incurred or done under this Act made, shall continue in force until it is superseded thereunder;
Provided further that the repeal of the said Acts shall not affect—
(a) the previous operation of the Acts repealed hereby or anything done or suffered thereunder;
(b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Acts so repealed;
(c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any Acts so repealed;
(d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege obligation liability, penality; forfeiture or punishment as foresaid; and, any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, or any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the said Acts aforesaid had not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the second proviso to sub-section (r) clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section to of the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, III. of 1349-E) shall for the purposes of the said proviso have effect as though for the said clause the following clause was substituted, namely:
“(e) If the amount received by the mortgagee from the mortgagor in case of a simple mortgage or the value of the benefits realised by the mortgagee from the possession of land together with the amounts paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee in case of an usufructuary mortgage is less than the amount due, the Collector shall, on the mortgagor paying the amounts due in cash, terminate the mortgage by an order in writing and if the mortgagee is in possession of the land, he shall place the mortgagor in possession thereof. If the mortgagor fails to pay the amount due, the Collector shall order that the land, if it is already in the possession of the mortgagee shall continue to be in his possession for such period not exceeding to years, as may be considered by the Collector reasonable for the payment of the amount due after the expiry of which the land shall be restored to the possession of the mortgagor”.
6. ??? above section with its saving provisos and sub-section (2), in our view, early show an intention to save accrued rights under Act III of 1349-F. This legislative intent is made further clear by sub-section (2) which notwithstanding the repeal of the Act III of 1349-F. by sub-section (1) amends clause (c) sub-section (2) of section 10 of the repealed Act. That apart, clauses (b) and (d) of the second proviso to section 103, save any right, privilege, obligation liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act and the remedy respect thereof can be enforced as if the Act has not been repealed. The rights, privileges and obligations conferred under Act III of 1349-F. are of a special nature and are designed to prevent a class of persons from alienating ??? lands without following certain procedure. The rights, privileges and obligations as well as the procedure for enforcing and determining those are specified under the Act. The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act which repealed Act III of 1349-F. did not lay down any special procedure work out the rights, privileges and obligations already accrued under the repealed Act. In such circumstances, it is an accepted canon of interpretation or deducing the legislative intent to presume that the old rights are to be determined by the old procedure and that only the new rights under the Act ??? are to be dealt with by the new procedure thereunder. A passage ??? Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes', 10th Edition, page 228, ??? support to this assumption. It is stated therein:
“Where rights and procedure are dealt with together, the intention of the Legislature may well be that the old rights are to be determined by the old procedure, and that only the new rights under the substituted section are to be dealt with by the new procedure”.
7. In Re Hale's Patent (1920) 2 Ch. D. 277, Sargant, J., dealing with the forum specified in section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, under which a section was substituted governing the user of the inventions after 23rd of April, 1920, observed as page 386:
“No doubt the general law is that, while rights are not statutorily altered retrospectively procedure is, apart from indications to the contrary, altered retrospectively; but where rights and procedure are dealt with together in the way in which section 8 of the Act of 1919 deals with them, the intention of the Legislature would seem fairly clear, namely, that the old rights are still to be determined by the old tribunal under the Act of 1907, and that only the new rights under the substituted section are to be dealt with by the Tribunal thereby substituted for the treasury”.
8. An observation by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Jatindara ??? De v. Jetu Mahato A.I.R 1946 Cal. 339, may also be pertinently referred. Chakravarti, J., at ??? 347, stated the proposition thus:
“………It must therefore be one of the general rules of construction that if rights and procedure are both altered but rights accrued under the repealed enactment are saved, then, in the absence of an intention to the contrary expressed or necessarily implead in the new statute, it will be proper to interpret the intention of the Legislature to be that the old precedure will subsist for the enforcement of the saved rights. There is no question of any vested right in procedure. The position simply is that the accrued rights having been saved and the new Act not having abrogated the old procedure as respects rights, nor made the new procedure applicable to them, the old procedure is consequentially saved, as the only possible machinery for enforcing those rights.”
9. See also State of Andhra v. Ramaswami 1958 A.L.T 605, (1958) 2 An. W.R 79. It is unnecessary in our view to multiple decisions as the proposition appears to us to be clear, admitting of no double. There is no provision in the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ??? for creating a usufructuary mortgage as is the case under the repealed Act. On the other hand, section 48(2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Acts prohibits any kind of mortgage where possession has to be delivered to the mortgagee in the following terms:
“(2) In the case of a mortgage, the Collector shall not sanction the same as if the terms of the mortgage are such that possession of the land is to be or may be delivered to the mortgagee as security for the money advanced or to be advanced.”
10. As opposed to this, section 2(d) of Act III of 1349-F. defines a usufructuary mortgage as a mortgage by which the mortgagor delivers possession of the mortgaged land to the mortgagee and authorises him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage money, and to receive the rents and profits of the land and to appropriate them in lieu of interest or in payment of the mortgage money or partly in lieu of interest and partly in payment of mortgage money. Section 7 specifically authorises a member of an agricultural class as being competent to mortgage his land only in the manner and subject to the restrictions prescribed therein. One of the forms of mortgage that he could effect is the usufructuary mortgage. The subsequent sections lay down the rules applicable to mortgages and addition of certain conditions in mortgages made under section 7. They also lay down the powers of the Taluqdar in respect of certain mortgages and the forum prescribed for determinining these rights has also been specified. In these circumstances, it is beyond doubt that the provisions of the new law, namely, the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act do not disclose the legislative intent to destroy the rights that had accrued or the liabilities that were incurred under the old Act or to terminate proceedings that were initiated before the law was altered, or to take away all its precedent effects.
11. In this view, we have no hesitation in holding that the procedure laid down by the repealed Act for adjudicating the rights accrued thereunder applies. These, revision petitions are, thereforef incompetent and must be dismissed with costs one set.
M.S.K
12. Petitions dismissed.