KURAPATI SUBBA REDDI Vs. VIRPAM CHENCHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal rises a question relating to the interpretation of explanation 4 to Sec. 8 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The debtor is the appellant. The facts of the case are simple and are within a narrow compass. The appellant filed O. P. No. 7 of 1950 for scaling down a debt due by him on a promissory note executed by him on 15-8-1946 Ex. B-2. This itself was in renewal of an earlier promissory note dated 15-8-1943, executed by him in favour of the respondent. It was alleged in the petition inter alia that the petitioner and two others by name Venkatareddy arid Venkatanarasayya borrowed nearly a sum of Rs. 1.000/- at a high rat'" of interest on promissory notes for business carried on by them in partnership, that subsequently there were several renewals and ultimately the debt was divided between the three executants and each executed a separate promissory note for his share of the debt on 15-8-1943, the one by the petitioner appellant being Ex. B-l. On these facts, it was claimed that the debt should be traced back to 1926.

(2.) This petition was opposed by the respondent. It was pleaded on his behalf that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief asked for and that the debt could only be scaled down on the basis of Ex. B-l. The trial court accepting the case for the plaintiff declared that there was no amount outstanding. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the order of the District Munsif. The learned Judge found difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant that the original borrowing went as far back asj 1926 as the allegations in the petition were vague, indefinite and con- fusing. In the petition, it was recited that the petitioner and two other persons borrowed Rs. 1,000/-on promissory notes. That being so, the learned Judge thought that it was difficult to establish connection between the promissory note in question with any of the promissory notes said to have been executed in 1926. However, he did not give any definite finding on that matter as in his opinion, the petitioner i. e., the present appellant, was not entitled to claim relief on the basis of the earliest promissory note said to have been executed by the appellant and by two others in or about the year 1926. He thought that the debt must be traced back to Ex. B-l, that the amount for which the assignment was taken should be regarded as the principal amount and that sum should carry interest at 6% per annum till 29-7-1947 and 5% thereafter. This appeal is filed by the aggrieved debtor. It is urged by Mr. Venkatarama Sastry that the conclusion of the lower appellate Court is erroneous and that the scaling down should have beenon the basis of the earliest promissory note. The principal question, therefore for consideration is whether the order under appeal could be sustained. The answer to this depends upon the inter- pretation of Explanation 4 to Sec. 8 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act which was added by the Madras Legislature in the year 1950. It is in these terms :

(3.) The problem that poses itself is whether the appellant would come under the expression "heirs, legal-*epresentatives or assigns of a debtor." Mr. Venka- tarama Sastry maintains that his client is an assign of a debtor and brings in aid some decisions of the Madras High Court and this Court, Madappa v. Athama Ramayya ' of the Madras High Court; and Nagachari v. Subbanna' and the unreported decision in C. M. S. A. No. 48 of 1953 of this Court. So far as the authorities cited by him are concerned, they have really no bearing on the present question for the reason that they are cases where there was partition either in the joint family of the creditor or of the debtor, and the debt was allotted to the share of one or other of the members of the family. These cases stand altogether on a different footing because either in the family partition or as a result of a decree in a partition suit the debt is allotted to the share of an indiv idual member. Such person could certainly be regar- ded as an assign. But the position here seems to be different in that several persons executed a promissory note in favour of a person and later divided the liability amongst themselves and each executed a separate promissory note for his share. There is considerable difficulty in accepting the inter- pretation sought to be put upon it by the counsel for the appellant. The meaning of the word 'assign' as given in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary is this: