KARNAM RAMAMMA Vs. PODAPATI PENCHALU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to he answered by the Full Bench is whether Explanation I to Section 8 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, introduced by the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXIII of 1948) covers receipt of money from Court towards a debt.

(2.) The point involved in this appeal relates to the method of appropriation, namely, whether a creditor could appropriate two sums of Rs. 1000.00 and Rs. 925.00 towards interest or whether they should go in reduction of the principal. The monies were received by him in the following circumstances.

(3.) The creditor in this case filed a suit on the foot of a promissory note and obtained a decree. Thereafter, he took out execution by attaching the properties of the judgment-debtor. Two sums of Rs. 1000.00 and Rs. 925.00 were deposited to the credit of another suit between the same parties. They were attached by the decree-holder in execution of the decree in question and were paid over to him by the District Court on 19-10-1948 and 14-7-1950. The decree-holder recorded part satisfaction of his decree by appropriating the amounts first towards interest and the balance towards the principal.