Govinda Menon, J. - The question that arises in this Civil Revision Petition is one regarding the applicability of section 13 of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act (Act IV of 1938). As it is an important one, the matter has come up for decision before the Bench.

On and April, 1944, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 200 agreeing to pay interest at 12 per cent. per annum. On 13th March, 1947, there was a payment of Rs. 70 endorsed on the promissory note, and expressly stated to be towards the interest due. Similarly on 8th June, 1949, another payment of Rs. 30 towards the interest was made, and there were further payments of Rs. 35 on 23rd February, 1950 and Rs. 50 on 1st September, 1952, towards interest as such. Appropriating these payments towards interest, the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 233-5-0 which according to him constituted the principal and balance of interest at the contract rate.

The contention of the defendant was that the payments already made should be appropriated in the manner contemplated under section 13 of the Act that is to say, the rate of interest should be only 5½ per cent. as contemplated by that section and any amount in excess of that sum should be adjusted towards the principal. The lower Court accepting the defendant’s contention decreed the suit on the basis of appropriation of interest at the statutory rate, and not at the contract rate, that is the plaintiff was entitled to take only interest at the rate of 5½ per cent. and not 12 per cent. Aggrieved by that decision the plaintiff has come up in revision and contends that the amounts already paid should be deemed to have been appropriated by consent of parties towards the interest due at the contract rate, and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get the principal with 5½ per cent. interest from 1st September, 1952, that is when the interest was paid last.

The chief argument of Mr. S. Ramachandra Iyer for the petitioner is that section 13 of the Act unlike sections 8 and 9 speaks of ‘interest due on any debt’. Whereas in section 8 what is stated is that debts incurred before 1st October, 1932, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned there and section 9 lays down the mode of scaling down of the debts incurred on or after 1st October, 1932. According to the learned counsel, the distinction is that when the parties come to Court requesting for scaling down of debts, either incurred before 1st October, 1932 or after 1st October, 1932, the provisions of section 8 or 9 respectively may be applied; but with regard to any debt incurred after the commencement of the Act, when a party comes before Court and seeks enforcement of the contract, whatever has been paid as interest should be considered as having been appropriated as a result of settlement and therefore, even if a higher rate of interest has been paid, such payment would not come within the mischief of the section. In other words what is argued is interest due must be read as interest “outstanding and not paid”. Where therefore, there has been an appropriation of interest at a higher rate than what is laid down in section 13, it should be deemed as if there is no interest due when remedy is sought for in a Court of law, and that there can be no reopening of settled transactions. Learned counsel relies upon the observations contained in Ramalakshmi v. Gopalakrishna Rao1, where it was held that in the case of a promissory note executed after the commencement of Act IV of 1938, carrying interest at 12 and 3/8 per cent. higher than what is laid down in section 13, and where there were series of payments of interest expressly appropriated by endorsements in a suit for the principal together with interest at the contract rate where the debtor claimed relief under section 13 of the Act, that payments having been made and appropriated towards interest at the contract rate under a mistake of law, cannot be got back and reappropr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document