The creditor is not entitled to appropriate part of the open payment towards interest that accrued upto the date of payment, as this would result in the debtor paying more than the statutory rate of simple interest.

A. SAMBASIVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS case belongs to the now disappearing category of litigation under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (hereinafter referred to at the act ). The amount actually in dispute and involved in the secoad appeal is also very small and in fact negligible, None-the-less the second appeal raises some point of interest as to the scope of the application of Section 13 of the Act.

( 2 ) THIS second appeal brought by the defendant arises out of a suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs 3783-51, which is the amount due on a promissory note dated 9-5-1962. The promissory note was executed on that day for Rs. 5200/- payable with interest at 9% per annum An open payment of Rs. 1545 / was made OB it on 1-3-1965. The promissory note was renewed on 9-5-1965 a further payment of Rs 1500/-was made on 22nd March 1967.

( 3 ) WHILE filing the suit,the plaintiff claimed interest only at the statutory rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by Section 13 of the Act. What he has however done is that he has appropriated, at the time of filing the suit, the payments made first towards the interest accrued on the debt till the respective dates of payments and then the balances of the two payments towards principal. That is, how he arrived at the figure of Rs. 3783-51 as still due to him on the date of the suit.

( 4 ) THE defence was that the debt had in fact commenced even earlier than 9-5-1962 and interest from the date of the origin of the date should be scaled down as per the provisions of Section 13. Further, the method of calculation adopted by the plaintiff is not permitted by Section 13, What should be done is that the interest at 5% Per annum should be calculated from the date of the debt to the date of suit and then from the total of the principal and interest thus calculated the payments made by the defendant with counter interest should be deducted.

( 5 ) THE courts below held against the defendant on the first contention. They repelled his case that the promissory-note of 9-5-1962 was a renewal of an old debt Thus the only question that survived for their decision is whether the plaintiff has correctly calculated the amount due to him on the basis of the promissory note of 9-5-1962 and its renewal in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the act, On this aspect of the matter the Court differed. The court of first instance took the view that Section 13 permits only simple interest and the plaintiff s calculation of the amount due to him resulted in adding of interest to the principal and consequently the principle of Section 13 is violated. The lower appellate court took the view that the method adopted by the plaintiff did not imply adding of interest with the principal and is therefore in accordance with section 13 of the Act- Thus while the trial court passed a decree for Rs: 3568-33 with future interest, the lower appellate court passed a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff viz , for Rs. 3783-51 with future interest. The defendant questions this decision in this stctnd appeal.

( 6 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the calculation adopted by the plaintift and approved by the lower appellate court is in accordance with bection 13 of the Act. To put it in other words, the problem is that when a debt is incurred after the commencement of the act and an open payment is made thereon without specifying the manner of its appropriation, whether the creditor can apply part of the payment towards the interest that accrued upto the date of payment and the balance alone towards partial discharge of the principal amount.

( 7 ) IN order to resolve this problem, T would like to understand the scope and nature of relief provided by section 13 of the Act, on a reading of that provision in conjanction with the material provisions of the Act The Act was male to provide for the relief of indebted agriculturists. Section 7 lays down that notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of court t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document