CHIDAMBARAM AIYAR Vs. MANICKAVASAGAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question arising for decision in this C.R.P. is whether in scaling down a debt under Section 9(1) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, the proviso to that section can be applied more than once, until the debt is traced back to the principal amount originally advanced. The petitioner obtained a decree against the respondents in S.C.S. No. 447 of 1937 on the file of the lower Court on a promissory note executed on the 9 of April, 1935. This promissory note was executed in renewal of an earlier debt incurred in April, 1933, which itself was the result of a settlement in respect of dealings" which commenced in June, 1931.

(2.) The petitioner's learned Counsel contends that in scaling down the decree debt in question under Section 9(1) of the Act, the Court can have regard to the earlier debt of April, 1933, but it cannot go further back to the commencement of the dealings in 1931 and scale down the debt under Section 8 with reference to the principal sums then advanced. We are unable to accept this contention. There is nothing in the language of the proviso to suggest that it can be applied but once in the process of scaling down. The section makes provision for scaling down debts incurred on or after the 1 of October, 1932, and directs that if any part of the debt sought to be scaled down is found to be a renewal of a prior debt, that part should be deemed to be a debt contracted on the earlier date and scaled down accordingly but in doing so, if it is itself a renewal in part or in whole of a still earlier debt, the proviso comes into operation again, for it is an integral part of the mode of scaling down prescribed under the section. We are of opinion that the object of the Legislature in enacting this provision is plainly to require the Court to trace the debt back through various renewals to the principal sum or sums originally advanced and scale it down under Section 8 or Section 9 as the case may be.

(3.) It was next urged that when the last promissory note on which the suit was brought was executed, there was an allocation of the prior payments towards interest and the note was taken only for the principal amount then found to be due and that there could be no question therefore of scaling it down. The respondents however denied such appropriation at the time and alleged on the other hand that the amount of the promissory note represented nothing but interest due on the original dealings. This is a question of fact on which the respondents case has been accepted by the Court below, and we are not prepared to interfere with its finding in revision.