Subba Rao, J.-This appeal raises an interesting point of law under the Madras, Agriculturists’ Relief Act, namely, whether a debtor could get a refund of the excess, amounts paid by him to the creditor subsequent to 1st October, 1937. The facts are fully and accurately stated in the judgment of the lower Court and it is not necessary to restate them except to the extent necessary for appreciating the point of law raised in the appeal.

Gopalaswami Naidu (the first defendant) executed a mortgage dated 1st October, 1918, for a sum of Rs. 1,900 in favour of Muthia and Subramania. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of Muthiah. Plaintiffs 3 to 6 are the sons. of Subramania. They instituted O.S. No. 45 of 1934 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura to enforce the said mortgage along with another mortgage with which we are now not concerned and obtained a preliminary decree on 25th January, 1936. The final decree was passed on 31st March, 1937. The decree-holders brought some of the mortgaged properties to sale in execution of the said decree in E.P. No. 60 of 1940. Some of the items of the mortgaged property were sold on 19th January, 1942, and a sum of Rs. 2565 was realised. The sale was confirmed on 20th February, 1942, and part satisfaction of the decree was entered for a sum of Rs. 2,421-9-0. On 22nd January 1944, the third plaintiff received a further sum of Rs. 300. On 27th December, 1945, the defendants filed I.A. No. 44 of 1946 under section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 for scaling down the decree debt. The learned Subordinate Judge found that a sum of Rs. 1,782-4-1 was the amount due under the mortgage decree, but the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 2,721-9-0 towards the decree. He therefore held that the defendants paid an excess amount of Rs. 939-4-11. The plaintiffs preferred the above appeal against the said order of the learned Subordinate Judge.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment-debtors are not entitled to a refund of the excess amount paid by them and relied upon the provisions of section 8(4) of Madras Act IV of 1938 in support of their contention, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents argued that sub-section (4) of section 8 is confined in its operation only to excess payments made prior to 1st October, 1937. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel it is necessary to consider in detail the scope of the relevant provisions of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows:

“7. Notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of Court to the contrary, all debts payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this Act, shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

No sum in excess of the amount as so scaled down shall be recoverable from him or from any land or interest in land belonging to him; nor shall his property be liable to be attached and sold or proceeded against in any manner in the execution of any decree against him in so far as such decree is for an amount in excess of the sum as scaled down under this Chapter.

8. Debts incurred before the 1st October, 1932, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder, namely:-

(1) All interest outstanding on the 1st October, 1937, in favour of any creditor of an agriculturist whether the same be payable under law, custom, or contract or under a decree of Court and whether the debt or other obligation has ripened into a decree or not, shall be deemed to be discharged, and only the principal or such portion thereof as may be outstanding shall be deemed to be the amount repayable by the agriculturist on that date.

(2) Where an agriculturist has paid to any creditor twice the amount of the principal whether by way of principal or interest or both, such debt including the principal, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged.

(3) Where the sums repaid by way of principal or interest or both fall short of twice the amount of the principal, such