DUPADA MADAPPA Vs. ALAMPALLI ATHMARAMAYYA SETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this case is whether the debt under a mortgage executed on 8-7-1921 by defendants 1 and 2 and their father in favour of the plaintiff's predecessors was liable to be scaled down under the provisions of the Madas Agriculturists Relief Act. Defendants 10 and 11 in the suit are the appellants before us. They are the purchasers of items 3 and 7 of the mortgaged properties.

(2.) The facts necessary for a decision of this question are as follows: On 26-111913 one Srinivasahi Chetti and his two sons, the present defendants 1 and 2, executed a promissory note in favour of one Adinarayanayya and his son Admoorthayya, the plaintiffs' predecessors-in-title tor a sum of RS. 5000 carrying interest at 7 1/2 per cent, per annum. On 8-1-1920 the same debtors executed another promissory note for a sum or Rs. 5000 in favour of the same creditors. The sum represented the principal due under the prior promissory note of 1913, the outstanding interest having been paid off by that date. On 8-7-1921 the same debtors executed two documents in favour of the same creditors. One was the suit, mortgage for Rs. 2705 and the other was a promissory note for Rs. 2500. From the recitals in the mortgage deed, the basis of the splitting of the amount due under the promissory note of 1920 is apparent. The amount due on the date of the execution or the two documents in question was Rs. 5000 for principal and Rs. 205 for interest. What the partias did was to include half the principal amount, namely, Rs. 2500 and the outstanding interest Rs. 205 in one document, via., the mortgage, and the other half of the principal amount, Its. 2500. in the cromissory note. Both the mortgage deed and the promissory note carried the same rate of interest, 9 per cent.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the appellants is that in effect by the execution of the two documents, viz.. the suit mortgage and the promissory note, there was a renewal of the debt which could be traced to the debt due under the promissory note of 1913. The fact that the debt was included in two documents need not affect the application of the Explanation to Section 8 So the argument ran, On the other hand, the plaintiffs-respondents' contention was that there had been a splitting up of the previous debt and neither the original explanation to Section 8 nor explanation III as substituted by Act 23 of 1948 nor Explanation III as amended by Act 24 of 1950 nor Explanation 4 introduced by the said Act has any application to the facts of this case. Explanation 4 specifically provides for the case of splitting up of debts among the heirs, legal representatives or assigns of a debtor or a creditor and the execution of fresh documents in respect of different portions of such debt. Obviously, the Explanation does not apply to the present case.