Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J.:

The question that falls for decision in this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is whether a debtor who has executed a promissory note after the coming into force of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, ( Mad Act IV of 1938) Hereinafter referred to as the Act), in renewal of a debt incurred prior to the commencement of the Act is entitled to claim the benefit of S. 9 of the Act. The trial court upheld the debtor s contention but in appeal the Subordinate Judge rejected and decreed the appellants suit in full. The High Court held that the interpretation placed on the relevant provisions of the Act by the Subordinate Judge was erroneous, allowed the appeal and restored the decree passed by the trial court.

2. Certain facts have to be stated in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before us and the fourth defendant constituted a Hindu joint family of which the first plaintiff was the manager till the year 1944 when the fourth defendant separated from the rest and the remaining members continued to remain joint. On September 14, 1938 the first defendant as manage