Wadsworth, J.

1. This appeal raises the question of the interpretation of Section 4(h) of Madras Act IV of 1938. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note, Ex. P-1, dated the 24th November, 1937. The promissory note was executed for a sum of Rs. 3,258-14-8 by the first defendant and relief was claimed on the basis that his son the second defendant was bound by the debt. This promissory note discharged an earlier promissory note Ex. P-2, dated 1st December, 1934, for Rs. 2,534-14-5 and there was a still earlier promissory note Ex. P-3 dated the 27th December, 1931, for Rs. 1,983-1-5 which so far as we are concerned is the starting point of the liability. The plaintiff claims that the debt due to her is protected from the operation of Madras Act IV of 1938 by reason of the provisions of Section 4(h) which runs as follows:

Nothing in this Act shall affect debts and liabilities of an agriculturist falling under the following heads:... (h) any debt or debts due to a woman on the 1st October, 1937, who on that date did not own any other property, provided that the principal amount of the debt or debts did not exceed Rs. 3,000.

2. It is not suggested that the app