PASUPULETI SRIRAMULU Vs. RAVURI NAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in S.C. No. 114 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,118.40 nP. being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note, dated 20th September, 1954, executed by the first petitioner in favour of respondent for Rs. 960 under which interest was stipulated at 123/8 per cent compound interest per annum. Interest was however, claimed at 5 per cent per annum only as the petitioners were admittedly agriculturists. The petitioners, while admitting the execution of the pronote, contended that it was executed in renewal of an earlier promissory note, da ted 11th December, 1951, executed by first petitioner (who is father of petitioners 2 to 5) in favour of respondent's wife for Rs. 1,000 and that therefore the debt has to be traced back to this promissory note and scaled down. The lower Court, following the decision in Pundarikakshudu v. Venkata Krishna Sastri, (1957) 1 An. W.R. 47 : 1957 A.L.T. 22 held that under section 13 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) hereinafter referred to as the Act, there is no question of scaling down of the debt by tracing it back and that the suit promissory note should be taken as the starting point for applying the provisions of section 13 of the Act. Following this judgment, the Court below negatived the contention of the petitioners and decreed the suit as prayed for. It is against this judgment and decree that the above Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

(2.) Sri Balaparameswari Rao, appearing for petitioners, argued that in the latest judgment of this Court in Punyavathamma v. Venkata Satyanarayana, (1960) 1 An. W.R. 336. the case of Pundarikakshudu v. Venkata Krishna Sastri. was held to be not good law after the decision of the Full Bench in Sait Nainamul v. Subba Rao, (1957) 2 An. W.R. 53: 1957 A.L.T. 536 (F.B.). He therefore contends that the debtors are entitled under section 13 of the Act to have the debt scaled down as and from nth December, 1951, the date on which the debt was first incurred by the petitioner. In Punyavathamma v. Venkata Satyanarayana, it does not appear that the previous promissory notes were in favour of a different creditor. As I felt some difficulty as to the applicability of this case to a case arising under section 13 of the Act where the earlier promissory notes were executed in favour of a different creditor, I have requested Mr. B.V. Ramanarsu to assist the Court. Sri B.V. Ramanarsu has placed before me all the arguments which could be urged in favour of the respondent-creditor who remained ex parte and I am thankful to Sri Ramanarsu. Sri Balaparameswari Rao relies upon the observations of the Full Bench in Sait Nainamul v. Subba Rao, which are as follows at page 539 :-

(3.) He contends that the position is the same whether the provisions of sections 8, 9 or 13 apply. But, I do not think that the Full Bench decided the particular point arising in this case because it is stated at page 540 that "It is not relevant for the present enquiry to notice the other differences in the nature and the extent of relief provided by the Act between the three debts."