https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181795 The Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 applied because the judgment-debtors were held to be agriculturists: the properties taken under the will were separate holdings in definite shares, and the peshkash attributable to each share did not exceed the statutory limit. The compromise decree was also held liable to be reopened and scaled down under the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948, since the amendment extended relief to money decrees not fully executed or satisfied before commencement and did not distinguish between contested and compromise decrees. The earlier compromise did not bar relief by res judicata, because a compromise decree is not a judicial decision on the disputed issue, and estoppel failed for want of proper pleading and trial. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:10:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181795 The Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 applied because the judgment-debtors were held to be agriculturists: the properties taken under the will were separate holdings in definite shares, and the peshkash attributable to each share did not exceed the statutory limit. The compromise decree was also held liable to be reopened and scaled down under the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948, since the amendment extended relief to money decrees not fully executed or satisfied before commencement and did not distinguish between contested and compromise decrees. The earlier compromise did not bar relief by res judicata, because a compromise decree is not a judicial decision on the disputed issue, and estoppel failed for want of proper pleading and trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181795