Decided on November 23,1954

Ramarnurthy Appellant


Umamaheswara, J. - (1.) THE debtors are the Appellants. The simple question is whether Section 9 or Section 13 of Act (IV of 1938) applies to this ease.
(2.) BOTH the Courts below, following the decision in Thiruvengadatha Ayyangar v. Sannappan Servai ( : 1941 2 Mad LJ 307: ILR (1942) Mad 57: AIR 1941 Mad 799 (2)) (A), held that as the promissory note was executed after the passing of Madras Act (IV of 1938), Section 13 alone applied to the case. The - learned Judges discussed the scheme of the Act and held that S. 13 applied to all debts incurred after the commencement of tile Act, whether they be in discharge of prior debts or hot. That decision has not been dissented from, but has been applied in all the subsequent cases by the Madras High Court. In Krishnayya v. Venkata Sub -barayudu, ( : 1952 1 Mad LJ 638: AIR 1952 Mad 831) (B), following that decision, Mr. justice Subba Rao (as he then was), held as follows: Section 13 governed all debts whether incurred for the firs' time or renewed in respect of earlier debts if they were incurred or renewed after the Act came into force.'' As pointed out in Suryanarayana v. Alavandara Rao, 1945 2 Mad LJ 565: (AIR 1910 Mad 111) (C) ''It is well settled that a debt incurred after the commencement of the Madras Act (IV of 1938) cannot be scaled down except in accordance with S. 13 of that Act. So, there is no force in the argument of the learned advocate for the Appellants that the debt must be traced back to 1937, or that the payment already made should be expropriated by applying S. 9. The Second Appeal therefore fails, and is dismissed with costs. No leave. The Civil Revision Petition is filed as against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Narasa -pur refusing to amend the decree in regard to the interest allowed by the District Munsif in respect of the amount found due by him.
(3.) THOUGH in the judgment no subsequent interest was provided for, the decree was correctly drafted and interest was awarded, on die sum of Rs. 1,408 -3 -0. The Respondent did not prefer an appeal as interest was provided for under the decree. The contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners that inasmuch as there was no provision for interest in the judgment, it ought not to have been included in the decree is, in my opinion, without much substance. It is unnecessary for me to discuss the scope and effect of Section 34, Code of Civil Procedure Code. As the Second Appeal is before me, I award interest on the sum decreed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.