VEERAPPA THEVAR Vs. KATHASWAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by a creditor whose two mortgage debts have been held to be completely discharged on a petition filed by the debtor under Rule 2 of the rules framed for scaling down of non-decreed debts, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 28 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act 1v of 1938. The two debts in question are post-Act debts, one for Rs. 5000 incurred on 15-101947 and the other for Rs. 2000 incurred on 4-1-1948. The contention of the creditor,. who is the petitioner before me in this revision, is that the learned subordinate Judge of Coimbatore had no jurisdiction to scale down or apply the provisions of Act 1v of 1938 to the debts in question, on an application by the debtor under the said Rule 2 of the rules, When the debt was not sought to be enforced by the creditor by any process in a Court of law. That the debt is not being enforced by any process in Court is clearly beyond doubt. It may also be stated that it has been held by this Court on more that one occasion that the provision of Section 13 of the Act giving relief to the agriculturist comes into play only when the creditor seeks to enforce the debt. Sec. 13 is precise and does not admit of any doubt. Under the marginal heading rate of interest payable by the agriculturist on loans, it runs thus:

(2.) A Full Bench decision of this Court in Chellammal v. Abdul Gafoor, holds that Section 13 of the Act does not render the payment of or a contract to pay interest on a debt incurred after the commencement of the Act at a rate higher than that prescribed therein, illegal. It is observed that such excessive interest in only made irrecoverable if the creditor seeks to enforce the debt in a Court of law and that the machinery provided for by section 13 does not extend to the reopening of payments already made. In papathi Ammal v. Nallu Pillai, it is observed:

(3.) AGAIN it is observed at page 597 thus: