RAJASEKAR Vs. KRISHNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point for consideration is whether the plaintiff/appellant will be entitled to a larger amount than what has been decreed by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) EVEN according to the plaintiff, the first defendant, since deceased, was an agriculturist. If he was an agriculturist, he would be liable to pay interest only as per Act 4 of 1938 as amended by Act 8 of 1973. His case was that the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000 from the plaintiff's grandfather one Ramasamy Chettiar and executed a mortgage deed agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum and agreeing to the other usual conditions as stipulated in the mortgage. Ramasamy Chettiar executed a Will dated 10.9.1969 and the plaintiff became entitled to the mortgage deed as per the Will. The deceased first defendant had paid interest up to April, 1974. Notice was issued to him on 29.10.1980. In spite of repeated requests and notice, he had not paid the amount. He was not entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Act. He was an agriculturist and a big farmer and interest at 9% per annum was claimed. Pending suit the first defendant died and his legal representatives came on record.

(3.) WHEN the plaintiff himself admits that the first defendant was an agriculturist and had also claimed interest at 9% per annum in conformity with Act 4 of 1938 as amended by Act 8 of 1973, it would not be open to the plaintiff to contend that the benefits of Act 4 of 1938 as amended by Act 8 of 1973 would not be available to the first defendant.