S. 13 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act does not enable a debtor to trace back his debt to the original debt incurred after the Act came into force.

SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Viswanathasastry J.

2. The facts are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated. The appellant sued the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1330/- on the foot of a promissory note dated 14-8-1948 for a sum of Rs. 1050/- repayable with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. That promissory note was executed in renewal of a prior promissory note dated 14-3-1945. The Court below held that there was no proof of the earlier borrowing than that evidenced by the promissory note dated 14-3-1945. Though the earlier promissory note was not produced the courts below fixed the principal of that promissory note by working back and deducting from the sum of Rs. 1050/- due under Ex. A-1 interest over the statutory rate of 5½ per cent included therein and gave a decree for that amount with subsequent interest at 6¼ per cent per annum from 14-3-1945 till 29-7-1947 and at 5½ per cent from the latter date. It was contended before Viswanatha Sastri J. that, as the suit promissory note was executed after the Madras AgriculturistsRelief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force, the respondent would not be entitled to trace back his debt to the earlier promissory note of the year 1945. The learned Judge rejected that contention and held that the latter promissory note sued on should be held not to be supported by consideration to the extent of the excess over the sum legally payable under the earlier document calculated with interest at the rate provided by the Act. In that view and relying on the provisions of S. 44 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned Judge confirmed the decree given by Courts below. Hence the appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, under the provisions of S. 13 of the Act which applies to debts incurred after the coming into force of the Act, the Court is not entitled to go behind the contract and, therefore, he would to entitled to a decree for the amount covered by Ex. A-l with simple interest at 6i per cent per annum. Section 13 reads :-

"In any proceedings for recovery of a debt, the Court shall scale down all interest due on any debt incurred by an agriculturist after the commencement of this Act, so as not to exceed a sum calculated at 6¼ per cent per annum, simple interest that is to say one pie per rupee per mensem simple interest or one anna per rupee as per annum simple interest :"

4. This section was subjected to judicial scrutiny by the Madras and Andhra High Courts. In Thiruvengadatha Aiyangar v. Sannapan Servai, ILR (1942) Mad 57 : (AIR 1941 Mad 799 (2)) (A) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that S. 13 applied to all debts incurred after the commencement of the Act, whether they be in discharge of prior debts or not. One of us in Krishnayya v. Venkata Subbarayudu, 1952-1 Mad LJ 638 : (AIR 1952 Mad 831) (B) following the Bench decision, expressed a view to the same effect thus :

"It is well settled that a debt incurred after the commencement of Madras Act IV of 1938, cannot be scaled down except in accordance with S. 13 of the Act."

The short question, therefore, is whether S. 13 of the Act enables a debtor to trace back his debt to the original debt incurred after the Act came into force.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the express terms of the Section in support of his contention that it could be so done. He emphasised upon the words on any debtin S. 13 and argued that a duty is cast upon the Court in a proceeding for recovery of a debt to scale down all interest due on any debt incurred after the Act under that Section. To illustrate his contention : In the present proceedings for recovery of the amount due under Ex. A-1, the Court should scale down the earlier debt incurred after the Act. of which the suit debt was only a renewal and, if so done, the amount covered by the suit promissory note in excess over that which would be d