543 of 1963.
5,650 on that date and again on September 13, 1944 when it was renewed by obtaining a promissory numbere for Rs.
According to the respondents Narayana lyer paid off the dues to the General Bank at the instance of the appellant and obtained a promissory numbere in his favour for Rs.
He, however, died during the pendency of the suit and is number represented by his sons, the respondents.
His plea was upheld by the learned single Judge of the High Court who held that the respondents after scaling down the interest as provided in the Act were entitled to a sum of Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and decree, dated October 10, 1958 of the Madras High Court in O.S. Appeal No.
As the amount was number paid, Narayana lyer instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises.
10,600 together with interest thereon at 61 p.a.
10,600.
Upon the aforesaid facts and the further fact that the appellant is an agriculturist he claimed that he was entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agricul turists Relief Act IV of 1938.
The debt was renewed in favour of the General Bank on January 3, 1940 by executing a fresh promissory numbere for Rs.
V. R. Tatachari, for the appellant.
9,275.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the appeal preferred by the respondents under the Letters Patent the appeal companyrt held that the respondents were entitled to a decree for the entire amount for which the promissory numbere was executed, that is, Rs.
He claimed that under the provisions of that Act he was entitled to have the debts scaled down.
1,350 together with interest thereon at 6 1/4 from March 22, 1938 up to the date of the decree.
Sundaram, K. Jayaram and R. Thiagarajan, for respondent No.
10,600 in favour of one Narayana Iyer, since deceased, on January 28, 1946 and agreed to pay interest on that amount at 12 p.a.
It is also admitted that numberrepayment was made by the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madras High Court modifying the decree passed by a single Judge of that High Court in a suit for recovery of money.
1 of 1954.
Admittedly the appellant had executed a promissory numbere at Madras for a sum of Rs.
350 to him.
