What is the measure of relief which an agriculturaist debtor is entitled to under the Madras Act IV of 1938 when the debt is incurred after the Act with a stipulation to pay interest at a rate exceeding the prescribed limits of the statute and when payments towards interest are made and appropriated in terms of the contract of loan and the creditor sues to recover the balance due is the question that arises for decision in this Second Appeal. Judicial opinion in the matter is conflicting. One view is that whatever payments are made and appopriated implementing the contract between the parties, being voluntary, they cannot be ripped open to help the debtor to get the benefits of the Act. The other view is that such payments though volunary in the sense that the debtor abstained from claiming the statutory concessional rate of interest must be deemed to have been made by mistake of law warranting the readjustment of the rights of the parties in accordance with law. Much can be said in support of both the views, and it is not surprising to find a sharp cleavage of opinion on the subject between eminent Judges.

Thangavelu Pillai, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 104 of 1957, on the