RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J. :- These appeals have raised a question of some difficulty on the interpretation of sub-sec. (9) (a) (i) of S. 9-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and the importance of it has necessitated this reference to a Full Bench. The point for decision can be formulated thus:

"Where in the case of a usufructuary mortgage (to which the scaling down provisions of S. 9-A of the Act would apply) created after the enactment came into force, there has been a lease back by the mortgagee of the mortgaged properties to the mortgagor, the payments of rent made by the latter to the former can be regarded as payments made for interest and be re-appropriated towards the principal after providing for interest at the rate prescribed by Sec. 13."

The two appeals concern different parties and have nothing in common except the determination of the question aforesaid. We shall first refer briefly to the facts that have led up to the two appeals.

2. L.P.A. No. 56 of 1961: is an appeal under Cl. 15 Letters Patent from the judgment of Jagadisan J. where the respondent, an agriculturist, created on 7th May 1945 a usufructuary mortgage