Summary
In 1932, the appellant renewed a promissory note executed in 1930 by his brother in favour of N, the -father of the respondents, for Rs. 1,000. The promissory note was renewed in 1937, 1940 and 1944 for the principal amount together with interest. The last 3 promissory notes were taken in the name of a Bank which was admittedly under the control of N. In 1946, at the instance of the appellant, N paid off the debt due from the appellant to the Bank and obtained a promissory note in his own favour for Rs. 10,600, the amount then due. As no repayment was made, N instituted a suit on the original side of the High Court which was decided by a judge sitting singly. Applying Explanation III to s. 8 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, he gave a decree only for Rs. 1,350 together with interest at 6 1/4 %
from the date of the Act. In appeal therefrom under the Letters Patent, the High Court held that the respondents were entitled to a decree for the entire amount of Rs.10,600 with interest at 6 1/4-%.Before this Court, it wag contended that, under the Explanation as amended by Act 24 of 1950, once it was found that a document was in renewal of a previous debt the benefit of s. 8 would be available was promisor even if the creditor in whose name the debt was renewed was different from the one who had originally advanced the loan and also even where the original debtor was different from the one who executed the document under which the debt was renewed.HELD : Though the requirement of the Explanation pertaining to the debtor was satisfied in the sense that the same person had been the debtor, the requirement with respect to the creditor was not satisfied. The benefit of the Act would be available to a debtor if the renewal was in favour of: (a) the same creditor; or (b) any other person acting in his behalf; or (c) any other person acting in his interest. Since the Bank has an independent existence, even though the controlling interest herein was with N, it would not be correct to say that there was identity between him and the Bank. Neither was there any material to show that the Bank acted on N's behalf when the appellant executed the promissory notes in favour of the Bank; and, even if the words "in the interest of" mean "for the benefit of" it cannot be said that the Bank, in obtaining the promissory notes in renewal of the original debt was acting in N's interest. Therefore, the Explanation was not available to the appellant. [212 D-G; 213 A-E]See the full content of this document
Extract
K. V. Srinivasa Ayyangar VS. P. N. Venkatasubramania Iyer And Others
PETITIONER: K. V. SRINIVASA AYYANGAR Vs.RESPONDENT: P. N. VENKATASUBRAMANIA IYER AND OTHERSDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/01/1966BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R.BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R.SARKAR, A.K.BACHAWAT, R.S.CITATION: 1966 AIR 1247 1966 SCR (3) 203ACT: Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (4 of 1938), s. 8 Explanation III-Scope of.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 543 of 1963.Appeal from the judgment and decree, dated October 10, 1958 of the Madras High Court in O.S. Appeal No. 1 of 1954.209T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellant.M. Sundaram, K. Jayaram and ...
See the full content of this document