This appeal raises an important question under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938). The defendant-judgment-debtor is the appellant. The suit was on a pronote for Rs.1,400, dated 5th July, 1948, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff with interest at 12 per cent. per annum. The defendant claimed relief under Act (IV of 1938) on the ground that the suit pronote was in renewal of an earlier pronote dated 9th July, 1945, for Rs.1,500 executed by the defendant in plaintiff’s favour. The main question that was considered by both the lower Courts was as to whether the suit pronote was in renewal of the earlier pronote or a fresh contract between the parties and whether the defendant was entitled to relief under section 13-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. Both the Courts found that it was a fresh contract and was not in renewal of the earlier pronote and that the suit pronote being after the Act the defendant would be entitled to relief only to the extent provided by section 13 of the Act by reducing interest on the suit pronote to 5 per cent. per annum.

It is now contended that the suit pronote was really in renewal of the earlier pronote of the 9th July