( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 63 of 1985 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge s Court, Vijayawada. The plaintiff, which is Bank of India, filed the suit for recovery of the amount due on a promissory note dated 4-10-1979 executed by the first defendant and one late Katamaneni Mangayamma for Rs. 62,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 1/2% per annum with quarterly rests. As Mangayamma expired, her legal representatives defendants 1 and 3 to 7 were added. The 2nd defendant executed a guarantee deed.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 2 to 7 remained ex perte. The first defendant filed a written statement contending among other things that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge following the decision of this Court rendered by P. A. Choudary, J. reported in Indian Bank, Palakole v. D. Venkata China Krishnam Raju, 1988 (2) ALT 148 holding Section 4 (e) of the Agriculturists Relief Act as unconstitutional, held that the plaintiff Bank is not entitled to the exemption under Sec. 4 (e) of the Act and, therefore, the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and so decreed the suit with interest as declared by Act IV 1938 from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the dale of the decree till the date of realisation. The plaintiff Bank has filed this appeal aggrieved by the said judgment.

( 4 ) SO, the only point for consideration is whether the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and whether interest is liable to be scaled down as per the provisions of the said Act.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the defendants are agriculturists. But the plaintiff-Bank is claiming exemption from the operation of the said Act by virtue of Section 4 (e ). Section 4 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, hereinafter referred to as the Agriculturists Relief Act, says that nothing in this Act shall affect debts and liabilities of an agriculturist falling under the heads mentioned in clauses (a) to (h ). Clause (e) of Sec. 4 reads :" (E ). Any liability in respect of any sum due to any co-operative society, including a land mortgage bank, registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 or any debt due to any corporation formed in pursuance of an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or any special Indian law or Royal Charter or Letters Patent".

( 6 ) IN the decision reported in Indian Bank, Alamuru v. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1983 AP 347, a Division Bench consisting of P. A. Choudary and P. Kodandaramayya, JJ. , held that (at page 353) :"a careful reading of Section 4 (e) would show that the words any special Indian Law could not have been intended to refer to any law made by any legislature of our country. A statute enacted by one of our nation s legislatures could not have been referred to with any degree of propriety or appropriateness as a special Indian Law. In speaking of any special Indian Law, Sec. 4 (e) of the Act, is referring not to a law made by any Indian Legislature but only to a law made by the British Imperial Parliament as a piece of special legislation applicable to India. Sec. 4 (e) of the Madras Act while speaking of any special Indian Law is only speaking of a special Indian Law made by the British Parliament as different from any Act enacted by the British Parliament that might have application to India also in common with the rest of the British colonies". The learned Judges further held that at page 354 :"the granting of exemption to any Corporation formed by the British Law is repugnant to the conception of our Sovereign Democratic Republic, the last part of S. 4 (e) of the Act containing the words, any debt due to any Corporation formed in pursuance of an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or any Special Indian Law or Royal Charter or Letters Pat