SAMAVEDAM LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. BODDU RAJA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is, whether a debtor, who is an agriculturist within the meaning of Madras Act IV of 1938 and has paid off the debt due to the creditor at a rate higher than that prescribed by the Act can file a separate suit to recover the excess amount paid contrary to the provisions of the Act. The lower Court dismissed the suit. The petitioners' Counsel contends that the suit is maintainable in view of the statement of the statement of law in Sait Nainamul v. Subba Rao, (1957) 2 An.W.R. 53 at 61 (F.B.). Prima Facie it appears to me that the petitioners' contention is well founded. But, I fild that a similar question arose for decision before Satyanarayana Raju, J. The learned Judge referred the case to be decided by a Bench of two Judges, but ultimately when the case was heard by Seshachelapati and Venkatesam, JJ., the learned Judges did not decide this particular point, because on the facts, according to the learned Judges, it was not necessary to decide this question-Vide Narasimhum v. Mahabubunnissa, (1962) 2 An.W.R. 182. I, therefore, direct this Civil Revision Petition to be posted before a Bench.

(2.) The petition was then heard by a Division Bench (Satyanarayana Raju and Kumarayya, JJ.). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Satyanarayana Raju, J.-This Revision Petition raises a short and simple question for decision, which is, whether an agriculturist debtor, entitled to the benefits of the Madras Act IV of 1938, can sue for refund of the amount paid by him in excess of the statutory rate of interest.

(3.) The material facts may be briefly stated : The petitioners filed S.C. No. 103 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Kovvur, against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 500. The plaintiff,' case was that, on 1st Sep ember, 1955) they borrowed a sum of Rs. 850 from the defendants on a promissory note' agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum but that the respondent' with a view to evade the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, got it recited in the promissory note that a sum of Rs. 1,000 was borrowed ; that they made two payments of Rs. 150 each and a further payment of Rs. 100 on another occasion, towards the promissory note debt. The plaintiffs averred that when they offered to discharge the debt, the respondent demandede a sum of Rs. 983 as being the balance due on the promissory note and that they, under the mistaken belief that the demand was true, paid the said sum. It was stated by the plaintiffs that since they were agriculturists the interest had to be calculated at 5 percent per annum on the amount borrowed and that after giving ciedit to the payments made by them, an amount of Rs. 52:1-8-0 only was due to the respondent but that they made an excess payment of Rs. 460-8-0.