CHEBROLU NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. RACHAPUDI SEETHARAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be answered by the Full Bench is whether Section 9 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, IV of 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) applies to a promissory note executed after the commencement of the Act in discharge of an anterior debt incurred after 1/10/1932 and before the commencement of the Act.

(2.) The question involved in both the revision petitions is the same. The two suits giving rise to these revisions are based on promissory notes executed in the years 1950 and 1952 but the liability of the respondents in both the cases originated in the year 1937. Though the debts were liable to be scaled down alter the Act came into operation, the suit promissory notes were executed for the full amounts i.e. for the principal and interest at the contract rate.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that they were entitled to a decree on the basis of the suit promissory notes and that it is Section 13 of the Act that applies and not Section 9. The defence was that the debts in question should be treated as renewals of earlier debts and that interest should be calculated at the rate provided under Section 9 of the Act from the date of commencement of the dealings.The trial court gave effect to the plea of the defendants and reduced the interest to 5 per cent, in the view that the debts have to be traced back to the same originally advanced, and that interest should be reduced to five per cent from the date of the first borrowing. The plaintiffs seek to revise those judgments and decrees.