AKILANDAM AMMAL Vs. INDRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the plaintiff-decree-holder. He filed the suit, O. S. No. 153 of 1969 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,591. 50 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by the first defendant's husband and the father of the other defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 10,000 payable with interest at 12 per cent per annum, but the claim being restricted to six per cent per annum. The suit was filed on 11th april 1969 and a decree was obtained on 16th Feb. 1970. Interest on the principal amount was paid on various dates. According to the plaintiff three amounts were paid towards his loan: a sum of Rs. 2500 on 13th April 1970; a sum of Rs. 1000 on 21st November 1970; and a sum of Rs. 6000. The only question is how this amount should be appropriated. According to the plaintiff the interest amounts to Rs. 2222-83 and therefore, giving credit to the sum of rs. 6000 the amount outstanding is Rupees 4000 principal and Rs. 2222-83 interest. According to the defendant (judgment-debtor), as a sum of Rs. 6000 has been paid, the principal outstanding is only Rs. 4000 and the decree-holder will he entitled to interest only from 1st May 1972 to 21st March 1973 at nine per rent per annum, as provided for under the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists' Relief act.

(2.) SECTION 7 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists' Relief Act provides that, notwithstanding any law custom, contract or decree of court to the contrary, all debts payable by an agriculturist on the 1st March 1972, shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the Act Sub-sec. (2) of section 7 provides that no sum in excess of the amount as scaled down shall be recoverable from him Sec. 8 is important and it provides that debts incurred before the 1st March 1972, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned thereunder namely,

(3.) THE contention put forward on behalf of the appellant (decree-holder) is that as sub-section (1) of Sec. 8 has been omitted by Act 8 of 1973, the interest outstanding is not wiped out, with the result that the liability to pay interest continues. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, while every payment made should be adjusted towards the principal, the interest accrued on the principal till such payment or on the principal as it stood after the payment of interest would continue and would be payable in addition to the principal. On the other hand, learned counsel to the provisions of sub-section (3) of S. 8 of the Act. His submission is that while explanation (1) to Section 8 makes it compulsory that every payment made by the debtor should be credited towards the principal, sub-section (3) of Sec. 8 makes only the principal, after such adjustment payable under the Act. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec 8 provides--