( 1 ) THE only point raised in this appeal filed by appellant - a nationalised Bank is as regards the quantum of interest and that point is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of india v. Ms. Vijay Transport, AIR 1988 SC 151 and the subsequent Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in State Bank of hyderabad v. Advath Sakru, AIR 1994 AP 170 (FB) which was rendered subsequent to the Judgment under appeal.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of rs. 52,717-67 being the principal and interest due by the respondent/defendant on the mortgage by deposit of title deeds and for further interest and costs.

( 3 ) THE plaint averments in brief are: the plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs. 40,000-00 for purchase of international tractor. The respondent/defendant after receipt of consideration executed a demand pronote in favour of the appellant-bank. The respondent/ defendant had also executed a Memorandum of Hypothecation, hypothecating the Tractor in favour of the plaintiff-bank. The respondent-defendant had also created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Since the defendant had not discharged the loan advanced, the suit is filed for recovery of the said amount with interest.

( 4 ) THE defence set up by the respondent-defendant is, apart from denying the advancement of loan, claimed the benefit of the Act 4 of 1938.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the plaadings, the learned Judge framed as many as four issues. The learned Judge found that the defendant had created equitable mortgage and also hypothecated the Tractor which is purchased from out of the loan advanced to him by the appellant-plaintiff. The learned Judge also held that since the loan was advanced to the respondent-defendant for purchase of tractor, who is an agriculturist, following the Judgment of this Court in Indian Bank, alamuru v. M. Krishna Murthy, AIR 1983 ap 347 that the defendant-respondent is entitled for the benefit of Act 4 of 1938, not with standing the amendment to the banking Regulations Act.

( 6 ) HOLDING as above, the learned Judge scaled down the interest that is due on the loan advanced by the appellant-plaintiff. He also held that the respondent-defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12. 5% p. a. , as per the Act 4 of 1938.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said Judgment giving benefit of the Act 4 of 1938 to the respondent-defendant, the appellant-plaintiff filed the present appeal.

( 8 ) NOW, the question is whether the learned Judge is right in giving the benefit of act 4 of 1938 to the respondent-defendant.

( 9 ) AT the time, when the Judgment was delivered by the Lower Court, this Court held in Indian Bank, Alamuru v. M. Krishna murthy (supra) that notwithstanding the banking Regulations Amendment Act, an agriculturist who has taken loan is entitled to the benefit of Act 4 of 1938. However, the Judgment in Indian Bank, Alamuru v. M. Krishna Murthy (supra) has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Bank of india v. M/s. Vijay Transport (supra ). The supreme Court held that :"banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings) Act is a special Indian Law and the provisions of section 4 (e) of Agriculturists Relief Act is applicable to the Bank which was nationalised under the Banking Companies act. Consequently in view of Section 4 (e), the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the Bank and, there would be no question of scaling down the debt due to the Bank by the firm the partners of which were agriculturists. "

( 10 ) THE Full Bench of this Court while delivering the Judgment in State Bank of hyderabad v. Advath Sakru (supra) had followed the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of India v. M/s. Vijay Transport (supra ). After the pronouncement of the judgments of the Supreme Court and the full Bench in State Bank of Hyderabad case (supra), the law laid down in Indian Bank, alamuru v. M. Krishna Murthy (supra) is no longer good law. The view expressed by