( 1 ) THIS revision has bqep, brought up before us by way of a, reference made by a learned single Judge, of this Court under S. 8 of the High Court Act. , ( 2 ) THE petitioner was thq defendant in OS. 3 of 1969 on the file of the Munsiff at Holenarasipur. He is aggrieved by an order made, by the learned Munsiff on Issue No. 1 relative to the status set up by him, in regard to which an issue had been framed in these, terms: " Does the plantiff prove that the defendant is an agriculturist? " ( 3 ) THE plaintiff sued, on a, pronote for a, certain sum alleged to, be due from the, defendant. Since the suit was plainly out of time, the, plaintiff had invoked the, benefit of S. 24 of the Mysore, Agriculturists Relief Act, 1928 (Act 18 of 1928), to, get over the bar of limitation. This suit came to be filed on 2-1-1969, and had been kept pending till the enactment of what is known as the Mysore, Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1966 (Act of 1966) - although the latter Act had been enacted in 1966, it was brought into force only on 1-4-1969. The defence of the defendant was that he was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act of 1928 and, therefore, the provisions of S. . 24 thereof could not be availed of by the plaintiff in order to save limitation fop his suit. ( 4 ) THE, learned Munsiff on a consideration of the evidence adduced on the issue on status, which was required to, be tried as a preliminary issue in the light of the provisions of the. Act of 1928, came to the, conclusion that the revision petitioner-defendant was an agriculturist within the meaning of that Act. This order was made by the learned Munsiff on 19-6-1972, that is long subsequent to 1-4-1969, the, date, on which the Act of 1966 (MADR Act) had been brought into force. Hence this revision. ( 5 ) BEFORE, the order impugned herein came to be made the MADR act was challenged by several petitioners who were affected by it, before' this Court, in a series of writ petitions. This Court in the, case of D. M. Thippeswamy v. State of Mysore, 1. 1970 1 Mys. L. J. 43. Hence this revision. ( 5 ) BEFORE, the order impugned herein came to be made the MADR act was challenged by several petitioners who were affected by it, before' this Court, in a series of writ petitions. This Court in the, case of D. M. Thippeswamy v. State of Mysore, 1. 1970 1 Mys. L. J. 43. struck dqwn the said Act as unconstitutional mainly on the ground that some, of the important provisions of that Act infringed Art. 14 of the Constn. The judgment in that case was rendered on 31st October, 1969. It is not disputed on behalf of the parties before us that the said decision has since been taken up in appeal before the Supreme Court by the State of Karnataka, and the same is pending be fore that Court. It is also undisputed that the, Supreme Court has issued an order of stay, more or less providing for status qua in respect of the pending proceedings before, the Tribunals constituted under the MADR Act. Presumably, having regard to the result of subsequent judicial proscedings and because of two decisions of this Court in Naroyanaswamy Nadu v. Gang reddy, CRP 2082/72 dt. 23-11-12. and Rudre Gowda v. Angadi Chikkanna, 1972 1 Mys. L. J. 310. the pe,titione relied upon them before the learned single judge of this Court, before whom the revision had been brought up for hearing in the first instance, and contended that the Court below had no jurisdiction. The first of the above decisions, which is by a, learned single Judge (Datar, J.), was dissented from by the learned referring Judge in the light of the enunciation in Rudre gowda's case (3), which is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court. This is how this revision has been brought up before us by way of reference. The first of the above decisions, which is by a, learned single Judge (Datar, J.), was dissented from by the learned referring Judge in the light of the enunciation in Rudre gowda's case (3), which is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court. This is how this revision has been brought up before us by way of reference. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been placed, almost exclusively, on the plain language of S. 64 (2) of the MADR Act and in the light of the enunciation in Rudre Gowda's case (3) whereby it had been held that the repeal of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act, 1923, was not nullified merely because the MADR Act, was struck down as unconstitutional in Thippeswamy's case (1), referred to earlier, in support of the contention that the Court below had no jurisdiction at all to decide the question of status subsequent to, 1st April, 1969, the date from which the Act of 1928 stood repealed. On behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, reliance has been placed, almost exclusively, on an enunciation in Rudre Gowda's case (3) which has been excerpted by the, learned single. Judge, of this Court in narayanaswamy Naidu's case (2 ). ( 7 ) ALTHOUGH the question of jurisdiction raised on behalf of the revision petitioner had not been raised in the Court below in the form in which it has been formulated before us, having regard to the subsequent judicial proceedings adverted to earlier and the fact that such a question goes to the root of the jurisdiction exercisable by the Court below we have permitted the petitioner to raise it. The enunciation in Rudre Gowda's case (3), on which reliance had been placed by the, learned single Judge, of this Court in Narayanaswamy Naidu's case (2) reads thus- (page, 313 of the report):"in those circumstances, S. 64 (MADR Act) became effective on April 1, 1969, when it came into, force and it virtually spent itself out immediately thereafter because the laws which were, repealed by that section ceased to be operative forthwith, subject, however, to the proviso which kept alive anything done or any action, taken under the acts so repealed. The subsequent judicial declaration could not undo what had been achieved by S. 64 as soqn as the Act came into force. " (emphasis supplied ). The subsequent judicial declaration could not undo what had been achieved by S. 64 as soqn as the Act came into force. " (emphasis supplied ). ( 8 ) THE learned single Judge in Narayanaswamy Naidu's case (2), placing reliance on the portion emphasised by us in the above passage, had come to the conclusion that if the suit had been filed prior to the coming into force of the MADR Act (1-4-1969) it could be continued and disposed of under the provisions of the previous enactment of the year 1928, as it the same had been in force for the, purposes of pending proceedings. ( 9 ) WE do not think that the interpretation placed by this Court in narayanaswamy Naidu's case (2) on the first of the provisos to sub-sec (2) of S. . 64 of the MADR Act could be sustained, nor, in our opinion, is it correct to hold that this Court in Rudre Gowda's case (3) meant that that proviso would have that effect. ( 10 ) IT is necessary to set out sub-sec (2) of S. 64 in full for our present purpose. 64 of the MADR Act could be sustained, nor, in our opinion, is it correct to hold that this Court in Rudre Gowda's case (3) meant that that proviso would have that effect. ( 10 ) IT is necessary to set out sub-sec (2) of S. 64 in full for our present purpose. It reads thus :" (2) The Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1928 (Mysore Act 18 of 1928), the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938 (Madras Act IV of 1938), the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 (Bombay act 28 of 1947), and the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1956 (Hyderabad Act XVI of 1956), are hereby repealed: provided that such repeal shall no,t affect the previous operation of the Acts so repealed and anything done or any action taken (including courts established or constituted, rules or orders made, forms prescribed, notifications or notices issued and proceedings instituted) by or under the provisions thereof, shall in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act, and shall continue in force unless and until superseded by anything done, or any action taken under this Act: provided further that all proceedings pending before any Court or authority shall stand transferred to the competent Court or authority under this Act, and if there be a doubt as to the competency of the court or Authority to such Court or authority as the High Court may designate and shall be continued before and disposed of by such Court or authority. "in our view a fair reading of the first of the above provisos would indicate that all that the legislature intended to lay down therein was that all concluded Actions and prqceedings pursuant to the Act of 1928 had been saved notwithstanding the enactment of MADR Act and all such actions or concluded proceedings in so far as they were not inconsistent with the provisions of the MADR Act should be deemed to haye been taken under the corresponding prqvisions of that Act and they shall continue to be in force unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under it. This is not to say that the pending proceedings as those with which we are concerned in the instant case could be continued under the Act of 1928 and as if the MADR Act had not come into force even after 1-4-1969. ( 11 ) VIEWED in the light of the above discussion the learned Munsiff was clearly in error in proceeding to adjudicate oh the issue of status of an an agriculturist even aftar 1-4-1969 on which day the Act of 1928 stood repealed and the MADR Act came into force. ( 12 ) THERE is another reason why we should hold that the Court below had no jurisdiction on the clay it recorded its finding on Issue No. 1 relative to the status of the defendant. The second proviso reproduced earlier provides that all proceedings pending before any Court or authority should stand transferred to the competent Court or authority under the MADR act. It is also provided that in case of doubt as to the competency of the court or authority to which such proceedings should stand transferred the High Court should designate the Court or authority to which such proceedings shquld stand transferred. It is clear frqm this proviso that the -moment the MADR Act had bqen brought into force the proceedings such as the one on hand before the lower Court would statutorily stand transferred to the Court qr authority constituted under the MADR Act. It follows frqm this proviso that the learned Munsiff had no more jurisdiction left in him to deal with the case further in the light of the provisions of the Act of 1928 after 1-4-1969. Hence the finding in revision is clearly one recorded without jurisdiction. ( 13 ) STILL a question may remain as to what should happen to the case before the learned Munsiff after 1-4-1969. It seems to us that after that day he merely continues to be a custodian of the records and only with a view to perform the ministerial act of transfer of those records to the competent court or authority designated under the MADR Act. It seems to us that after that day he merely continues to be a custodian of the records and only with a view to perform the ministerial act of transfer of those records to the competent court or authority designated under the MADR Act. Since the matter in thippeswamy's case (1) is pending in appeal befqre the Supreme Court with an order of stay passed thereon as referred to earlier the records in the case will haye to continue to remain with the learned Munsiff pending disposal of the appeal by the Supreme Court. In this context it is relevant to note a submission that having regard to the decision in Thippeswamy's case (1) the proceedings befqre the learned Munsiff would also stand revived to be dealt with under the Act of 1928. To this contention the ratio of the decision in Rudre gowdaes case (3) affords a complete answer. The proviso in question is one which goes along with sub-sec (2) of S. 64 of the madr Act S. 64 (2) has repealed the Mysqre Agriculturists Relief Act of 1928. It is in the contenxt of the scope and ambit of such a repeal and the decision of this Court in Thippeswamy's case (1) that the decision in Rudre gowda's case (3) has been rendered holding that the decision of this Court striking down the MADR Act would not necessarily have the effect of reviving the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act of 1928 which had stopd repealed by S. 64 (2) of the MADR Act. In these circumstances this contention cannot be allowed to prevail. ( 14 ) THE result is that this petition suceeds and is accordingly allowed. The order impugned is set aside subject to the observations made? merein regarding the custody and transfer of the records relative to the suit' by the Court below. In the circumtances no costs. --- *** --- .