Satyanarayana Rao, J.- The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The suit was instituted for the recovery of a large amount of Rs. 30,000 as principal and interest due under a mortgage, Ex. P-1, dated the 19th September, 1925, executed by one T. Seshiah, the father of defendants 2 to 4 and the husband of the first defendant in favour of plaintiffs. There were various defences to the action, and we are now concerned only with two questions: (1) whether the debt is liable to be scaled down under Madras Act IV of 1938 and (2) what amount should be deducted as rent for the godown in the occupation of the plaintiffs from the amount due under the mortgage.

The defendants claimed that they were agriculturists entitled to the relief under the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge found that they were agriculturists, and that they were entitled to relief under Act IV of 1938. The attempt of the plaintiffs was to exclude the application of the Act to the present case by alleging that the case fell under section 4(d) of the Act, which states:

“Nothing in this Act shall affect debts and liabilities of an agriculturist falling under the following heads:

* * * * * *

(d) any debt contracted on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document