CHERUKURI INDIRADEVI BEING MINOR BY NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER, N C KRISHNAYYA NAIDU Vs. MAMIDIPALLI AUDINARAYANAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant sued on a mortgage bond stipulating for compound interest at ten per cent. THE date of the bond is 16 September, 1933. THE two defendants are father and son. THE 1 defendant is described as a Taluk Head Accountant. THE, 2nd defendant is a minor. THE lower Court held that the 1 defendant was disentitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 by reason of the fact of his payment of profession tax and held that as a consequence under Section 6 of the Act his son the 2nd defendant was also debarred from the benefits of the Act. We have held that Section 6 has no application to a family consisting only of a father and son, but that it is intended to apply to families in which there are several branches one or more of which is composed of father and son. THEre is, however, no appeal on behalf of the 2nd defendant. THE lower Court has reduced the rate of interest from ten per cent. compound to ten per cent. simple quoting in support of that decision the Usurious Loans Act as amended. But the purport of the legal provision so described occurs not in the amendment of the Usurious Loans Act but in Section 6-A of the Madras Debtors Protection Act as amended in 1935. This amendment cannot apply to the present transaction which was of 1933, seeing that the amendment is applicable only to transactions entered into after the commencement of the amending Act. THE Madras amendment to explanation I of Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act provides that in the cases of loans to agriculturists, if compound interest is charged, the Court shall presume that the interest is excessive. In this clause the word "agriculturist" is used presumably in its ordinary sense of a person following the calling of agriculture. THEre is no evidence that the 1 defendant is such a person and presumably he is not an agriculturist in the ordinary sense of the word, for he is admittedly employed as a Taluk Head Accountant. It follows that so far as the 1 defendant is concerned, the reduction of interest is unjustified and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree with compound interest at the contract rate up to the date fixed for payment by the lower Court. We have some difficulty in dealing with the case of the 2nd defendant. Whether or not, the minor son of a Government servant who owns agricultural lands can be described as an agriculturist for the purposes of the Usurious Loans Act, must depend upon the circumstances of the family about which we know very little. But as it appears in this case that upon a right view of the law, the second defendant could have had the benefits of Act IV of 1938, which we are unable to give in the absence of an application on his behalf, we are of opinion that we should not be justified in enhancing the decree against him on the theory that he is not an agriculturist under the Usurious Loans Act.

(2.) THE appeal is therefore allowed so far as the 1 defendant is concerned with costs and is dismissed with costs of the 2nd defendant.