NAMILLA RACHAYYA Vs. GAJULA NUNNA NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who is the plaintiff, filed a suit O. S. No. 197 of 1962 in the Court of the District Munisf, Dharmavaram for recovery of Rupees 1300/- due under a simple mortgage bond dated 2-5-1957 stipulating for payment of simple interest at 12% per annum. It is common ground that the starting point of the indebtedness was 10-5-1950 when the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 under a promissory note executed by the defendant. On 10-6-1953, the promissory note was renewed by the execution of a simple mortgage deed for Rs. 1, 400.00 made up of the original principle and interest which accrued upto the said date and also the registration expenses incurred for the execution of the mortgage. On 2-5-1957, the amount due under the mortgage deed dated 10-6-1953 was calculated with interest at the contract rate and the total amount was found to be Rs. 2, 058/- Deducting the payments amounting to Rs. 1058.00 the suit mortgage was executed for Rs. 1,000.00 on 2-7-1957 stipulating for the payment of simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The defendant also claimed to have made a further payment of Rs. 70.00 towards the suit mortgage. The main defence to the suit was that the defendant is an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of Section 13 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as the act) and that the transaction should be reopened from 10-5-1950 and that interest should be scaled down as provided therein, that is, at the rate of 5 and 1/2 % only. The trial court disbelieved the payment of Rs. 70.00 and accepting the other plea of the defendant, passed a preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 401.00 On appeal by the plaintiff in S. S. No. 120 of 1963, the learned District Judge Anatapur confirmed the decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the said decision, the plaintiff filed the above second appeal.

(2.) C. R. P. No. 2121 of 1968. This Revision is filed by the plaintiff who filed a small cause suit NO. 99 of 1968 in the Court of the Dist. Munsif. Madanapalle, for recovery of Rs. 200.00 due under a promissory note dated 21-2-1965. The defendant stated that the suit promissory note was only a renewal of the earlier indebtedness which started in 1948 and that the interest from the said date should be scaled down as provided in Section 13 of the Madras Act IV of 1938. The defendant also pleaded discharge of the liability by virtue of the payments made form time to time. The trial court, while accepting the plea of the defendant that the suit debt was a renewal of the earlier promissory notes and disbelieving one of the payments, namely, Rs. 50.00 pleaded by the defendant, held that the debt is liable to be scaled down as from the date of the original borrowing at the rate of interest provided under the Act and accordingly passed a decree only for Rs. 32-75 paise.

(3.) When the present Second Appeal came up for hearing before Venkatesam J. Sri E. Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Pochamma V. Surayya, (1968) 2 Andh WR 358 requires reconsideration. Hence the Learned Judge directed the Second Appeal to be posted before a Division Bench.