Horwill, J.

1. The question which has been referred is whether Somasundaram Chettiar v. Karuppan Chettiar (1940) 51 L.W. 606 was rightly decided by this Court. The judgment was pronounced by Pandrang Row and Krishnaswami Aiyangar. JJ., sitting as a Divisional Bench. After the judgment had been pronounced an application was made on behalf of the fourth respondent by his mother, who was his guardian for an order under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act scaling down the debt. The Act had not been pleaded at any stage before the appeal was heard and decided. The reason was that when the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, the Act had not come into force, and the claim was allowed only when it came before this Court on appeal. On the footing that it would be contrary to the spirit of the Agriculturists Relief Act not to give the judgment-debtor the benefit of the provisions of the Act the learned Judges passed this order:

We are therefore of opinion that the application is one which ought to be admitted and which has to be enquired into. In accordance with the usual practice the application will be remitted to the Court below for disposal according to l