(1.) THE debtors are the Appellants. The simple question is whether Section 9 or Section 13 of Act (IV of 1938) applies to this ease.
(2.) BOTH the Courts below, following the decision in Thiruvengadatha Ayyangar v. Sannappan Servai ( : 1941 2 Mad LJ 307: ILR (1942) Mad 57: AIR 1941 Mad 799 (2)) (A), held that as the promissory note was executed after the passing of Madras Act (IV of 1938), Section 13 alone applied to the case. The - learned Judges discussed the scheme of the Act and held that S. 13 applied to all debts incurred after the commencement of tile Act, whether they be in discharge of prior debts or hot.
(3.) THOUGH in the judgment no subsequent interest was provided for, the decree was correctly drafted and interest was awarded, on die sum of Rs. 1,408 -3 -0. The Respondent did not prefer an appeal as interest was provided for under the decree. The contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners that inasmuch as there was no provision for interest in the judgment, it ought not to have been included in the decree is, in my opinion, without much substance. It is unnecessary for me to discuss the scope and effect of Section 34, Code of Civil Procedure Code. As the Second Appeal is before me, I award interest on the sum decreed.