MADHUSUDAN RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Full Bench is constituted to resolve a conflict of views in regard to the mode of appropriation of open payments made by an agriculturist debtor towards a debt contracted after the commencement of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 which was adapted in this State as the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturist Relief Act.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff. The contesting respondents 1 to 4 are the defendants 1 to 4 respectively. The second defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant. The defendants 1, and 4 executed a mortgage hand in favour of late Kancherla Narasimham, the father of the plaintiff for Re, 16,000 on 8-11-1951 agreeing to pay the amount in four equal yearly installments of Rs. 4,000 with interest at 10% p. a. and in default of payment of the instalments at 12% compound interest per annum. They made part-payments of Rs. 7,000 on 15-3-53, Rs. 800 and 17-2-55, Rs. 600 on 19-3-55, Rs. 1,400 on 12-6-56, Rs. 1,460 on 22-9-56, Rs. 100 on 12-3-57, Rs. 100 on 7-11-59 and Rs. 950 on 9-6-61 No payments were made subsequent to the payment on 9-6-61. During his lifetime Kancherla Narasimham executed a registered will bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties in favour of his son, the plaintiff, After the death of Narasimnham the plaintiff instituted the suit against the suit four defendants for recovering an amount of Rs. 13 ,826-23 ps. being the principal and interest due on the bond by the date of suit, He impleaded the Official Receiver, West Godavari the 5th respondent herein, as the 5th defendant Since the first defendant was adjudged insolvent in I. P. 11 of 64 on 26-7-65. The plaintiff sued for an amount of Rs 13,800 and odd only, as the defendants 1 to 4 are agriculturists entitled to the scaling down of the interest at 5 1/2 p. a, simple interest. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff died a memo stating that by correctly Calculations the amount due to him under Section 13 of the Act 5 1/2% p. a. simple interest, he would be entitled to only Rs. 11,910-78 Ps. and prayed that a decree may be passed for that amount. The defendants 1 to 4 contended that the suit mortgage bond was not fully supported by consideration, that the suit was barred by time and that at any rate, the open payments made by them were not properly appropriated by the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE trial Court found that the suit mortgage band was supported by consideration only to extent of Rs, 15,525 that the suit is not barred by time and that as the part-payments made by the defendants were open, without any specification in regard to their appropriation towards interest or towards principal the plaintiff could not apply the payments towards the interest that accrued up to the dates of the payments and balance alone towards partial discharge the principal amount. It held that these open payments should be appropriated towards principal debt. Accordingly the trial Court passed a preliminary decree in plaintiffs favour for a sum of Rs. 8,226-85 ps, with proper costs together with interest at 5 1/2% p. a from the date of plaint till realisation. Granting three time for redemption the court the plaintiff to proceed against properties allotted to the share of the first defendant in the first instance to proceed against the share allot to the third defendant only in the event of the decree debt not being realised by the sale of the specified properties the first defendant. In passing a decree for Rs. 8,000 and odd, the learned Subordinate Judge relied an the decision in I. V. Subbaiah v. I. Venkatrayudu, (1973) 1 APLI 377 in which one of us held that under S. 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 an open part-payment made by a debtor towards a debt incurred after the commencement of the Act cannot be appropriated by the creditor towards the interest and the balance alone towards partial discharge of the principal amount but that the part-payment should be appropri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document