K.V. SRINIVASA AYYANGAR versus P. N. VENKATASUBRAMANIA IYER AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 06-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. V. SRINIVASA AYYANGAR 
v. 
P. N. VENKATASUBRAMANIA IYER AND OTHERS· 
January 6, 1966 
[A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.) 
Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (4 of 
1938), s. 
8 
Explanarion 
Ill-Scope of. 
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. l,000. The promissory note was renewed in 19.17, 1940 and 1944 
for the principal amount logethcr with interest. ·rhc last 3 promissory 
notes were taken in the name of a Bank wh ·ch \Vas admittl!dly under the 
control of N. 
Jn 1946, at the instance of the appellanr, N paid off the 
debt due from the appcibnt to the Bank and obtained a prom•ssory note 
in his O\\:n f;tvour for R:-o. 10,600, the amount then due. 
As no repay-
ment was made. N inStti'u'e<l a suit on the original side of the lligh L'ourt 
which was decided by a judge sitting singly. 
Applying Explanation III 
to s. 8 of the !\-fadras Agricullurists' Re-lief Act, 1938, he gave a decree 
only for Rs. 1.350 togeth!!r , .. ·ith interest at 6.\% from the date of the Act. 
In appeal therefrom under the Letter. Parent, the High Court held that 
the respondents 
\\-ere. 
entitled to a decree for the entire amount of 
Rs. 10,600 v.-ilh interest 011 
6!~(. 
Before thi.s Court, it wa9 contended that. under the Explanation as. 
amended by Act 24 of 1950, once i! \l."<Lo; found that a document was 
A 
B 
c 
D 
in renewal of a previous debt the benefit of s. 8 \\'Ou!d be av:1iLthl~ \\'<.is 
E 
promisor even if the creditor in 1,1,·hosc name the deht y.·as rcne\\:cd was 
different from the one \\·ho had originally advanced the Joan and also 
oven \vherc the origin;il debtor \vas different fron1 the one who executed 
the document under which the debt \\las 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 \\'Lh respect to !he creditor was not satisfied. The benefit 
F 
of the Act would ho available to a debtor if :he rene\val was in favour of: 
(a) the same creditor: or (b) any other person acting in hi' behalf; or 
(c) any other person acting in hiS> in'.crcst. Since the Bank has an inde~ 
pendent exi~tence, even though the controlling interest herein was with N, 
"> 
' 
• 
.. 
( 
I 
• 
1t v.·ould not be corrcc! to ~ay !ha! there was identity bel\VC~n him and the 
Bank. Neither was there any material to show that the Bank acted on N's 
behalf when the appeliant c:itecuted the promissory notes in favour of the 
G 
t 
Bank; and. even if ?he \\'Ord'i "in the inlercst or• mean "for ihe henefit of' 
> 
it cannot be sa~d that the Bank, in obtain.ing the promissory notes 
in 
,\ 
rene\\·al of thJ original dchl v.·as acting in N's interc.."if. 
Therefore, the 
Explana:ion was not availahlc to the appellant. (212 D-G: 213 A-El 
/ 
CIVIL APPELLATF. 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. 
• 
H 
' >. 
) 
• 
SRINIVASA V. VENKATASUBRAMANIA (Mudholkar, !.) 
209 
A 
T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellant. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M. Sundaram, K. Jayaram and R. Thiagarajan, for respon-
dent No. I. 
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. 
Admittedly the appellant had executed a promissory note at 
Madras for a sum of Rs. 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 no repay-
ment was made by the appellant. 
Narayana 
Iyer, 
therefore, 
instituted a suit against him for recovery of a sum of 
Rs. 14,402-5-0, which includes 
interest upon 
the sum 
of 
Rs. 10,600. 
The appellant contended that the promissory note was only 
a renewal of a previous promissory note which itself as well as 
three earlier prnmissory notes were in renewal of the original 
promissory note for Rs. 1,000 executed in 
the 
year 
1930. 
According to the appellant that promissory note was executed by 
his brother but was renewed by the appellant himself in the year 
1932; that this promissory note was renewed on January 11, 
1937 by him and that at that time Narayana Iyer had given an 
additional amount of Rs. 350 to him. 
The a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.