1. The decree-holder in O.S. 1185/03 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Nagercoil has preferred this Second Appeal. The sole question for decision relates to the interpretation of the words "the date of the decree" in S.11 of the Travancore Debt Relief Act (II of 1116). The facts relevant for the purpose of this second appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

2. The District Munsiff's Court of Nagercoil passed a decree on 27.4.110/12.12.34 allowing the decree holder to recover from the defendant 107 Kottahs, 3 marakkals and 6 padies of paddy or its value in money. On appeal to the District Court the decree of the trial court was modified, allowing recovery of a higher amount viz., 4911 fanams. The decree of the District Court was passed on 19.11.1111/2.7.36. The defendant's second appeal against the decree was dismissed by the High Court of Travancore on 9.7.1115/21.2.40. The judgment debtor applied under S. 8, 9 and 15 of Act 11 of 1116 for fixing the amount of the debt and allowing payment of the same in instalments. The amount had to be fixed according to the provisions of S.11 of the Act which is extracted below:

"In determining the amount of a decree debt for purposes of payment under Ss. 8 and 9, notwithstanding anything contained in S. 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1100, or any other law, contract, decree, or order of Court to the contrary, not more than one-half of the principal in the case of money debts and not more than the principal in the case of paddy debts shall be deemed payable towards interest up to the date of the decree and not more than a like amount towards interest from the date of the decree".

The decree holder contended that the date of the decree contemplated in S.11 was to be taken as the date on which the trial court passed the decree, while according to the judgment debtor it was the date of the decree passed in second appeal. The courts below upheld the contention of the judgment debtor. The decree-holder has therefore preferred this second appeal. In view of the absence of any decision of this court on this question and as it was likely to arise in other cases, the second appeal was referred to a Full Bench for decision.

3. The question for decision is whether the words "the date of the decree" in S.11 means the date of the trial court's decree or of the decree passed by the appellate or second appellate court. In respect of decree debts to which the Debt Relief Act applies, S.11 effected a change in the pre-existing law which was contained in S. 31 of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure. S. 31 was in these terms:

"(1) In suits for money, no Court shall, in respect of the period antecedent to the institution of the suit, allow in its decree a higher rate of interest than twelve per cent per annum and the amount adjudged as interest for such period shall not exceed one-half of the principal amount sued for.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation I of 1010, where the decree is for payment of money, the Court may, in addition to the interest awarded under sub-s. (1), decree payment of interest on the principal sum adjudged of such amount as may accrue at a rate not exceeding twelve per cent from the date of suit to the date of decree.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation IV of 1010, where the decree is for payment of money, the Court may, in addition to the interest decreed under sub-ss. (1) and (2), decree future interest at a rate not higher than nine per cent on the aggregate sum adjudged from the date of decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit, provided, however, that the amount of interest accruing from the date of the decree shall not exceed the aggregate sum adjudged.

(4) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of future interest on such aggregate sum as aforesaid from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such