(1.) The points referred by the Bench to this Full Bench for an authoritative decision are : 1. Whether a creditor is entitled to retain payments made towards interest in excess of the interest palpable tinder the provisions of the Act without adjusting them towards the principal ?
(2.) Whether there is any distinction in principle between a debt to which the provisions of 8. 8 apply and that governed by the provisions of Section. 9? The material facts are these. Respondent 1, for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, executed a mortgage deed, Ex. D-1, dated 10-8-1936, in favour of the appellant for a sum of Es. 5000, with interest at.9 per cent, per annum. The consideration for the mortgage deed was made up of the following items : (1) A sum of Es. 2892 due on a promissory note executed by defendant l on 8-121935 in renewal of other promissory notes, the earliest of them being of the year 1929, (2) A sum of Es. 70 taken by him for purchase of stamps, (3) A sum of Es. 1000 paid for discharging the debt due on a promissory note dated 2812-1935 in favour of one Yellamma Baju and (4) A sum of Es. 1038 paid for discharging the promissory note dated 24-4-1935, executed by respondent l in favour of one Battamma.
(3.) The relevant provisions of Madras Act IV [4] of 1938 may now be set out :