JUDGMENT Sharpe, J. - The decree-holders are the Appellants and the appeal arises out of an application under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders' Act, 1940, for the reopening of a compromise decree passed on 23rd November, 1934. The original loan was for a sum of Rs. 18,000 and the decree on compromise was for a sum of Rs. 27,878 and odd, payable in five instalments in Chaitra, 1342-46 B.S. with interest at 6 per cent, per annum; it was agreed that if the instalments were duly paid with interest, the sixth instalment of Rs. 6,685 and odd would be remitted. In 1938, the decree was put into execution in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jessore, on the allegation that there had been default in the payment of instalments. The amount for which execution was sought was Rs. 27,430 and odd, a figure which was reached by deducting from the full amount of the compromise decree, viz., Rs. 34,564 and odd (Rs, 27,878 plus Rs. 6.685) Plus the stipulated interest, two sums of Rs. 7,898 and odd and Rs. 5,497 and odd paid by set off against rent on various dates. These latter amounts were on account of the rent and cess due to Sarat Chandra Goswami, the judgment-debtor, by the Jessore Loan Company, decree-holders, for a point taluk held by them as patnidars under Sarat Goswami. The annual rent and cess so payable was Rs. 6,558-1-0. Certain objections were taken to the execution by the judgment-debtor and a miscellaneous case started. Amongst others, was an objection that the entire amount of rent and cess for the year 1343, viz., Rs. 6,558-1-0 had been credited towards the instalment due under the mortgage decree in Chaitra for that year. This objection was sustained by the learned Subordinate Judge who held by his order, dated the 11th January, 1939, that Rs. 6,683 and odd (viz., rent and cess of Rs. 6,558-1-0 set off plus Rs. 125-7-6 in cash) had been paid towards the instalment of Chaitra 1343 B.S. Certain other objections were disallowed but the execution case was dismissed, mainly on the ground that the total amount due to the decree-holders was Rs. 19,000 and odd and not Rs. 27,000 odd as claimed by them. 2. 6,558-1-0 set off plus Rs. 125-7-6 in cash) had been paid towards the instalment of Chaitra 1343 B.S. Certain other objections were disallowed but the execution case was dismissed, mainly on the ground that the total amount due to the decree-holders was Rs. 19,000 and odd and not Rs. 27,000 odd as claimed by them. 2. An appeal being Appeal from Original Order No. 126 of 1939, was preferred to this Court and during the pendency of the appeal an application was filed by the judgment-debtor under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders' Act. The appeal succeeded in part and it was observed that the question whether there was any default or not on the part of the judgment-debtor and what amount, if any, would be due toy the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder require further investigation 3. The order of the Subordinate Judge was set aside and the case sent back to him together with the application under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders' Act an order that both these matters may be heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge. The directions were that The Subordinate Judge will first deal with the application under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940, and if, in his opinion the decree has got to foe re-opened and a new decree pawed, obviously the new decree alone could be executed. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge thereafter took evidence and came to the conclusion that the total amount which the decree-holders could recover under the Bengal Money-Lenders' Act was Rs. 38,140-8-3 and as the amount already paid, before and after the decree, was Rs. 38,125-11-3, the amount remaining due to the decree-holders was Rs. 14-13-0 only. He has accordingly passed a new decree for that amount and the decree-holders have now appealed. 5. The only point which has been pressed by Mr. Mukherji for the Appellants is that a sum of Rs. 1,400 was wrongly realised by the judgment-debtor by sale of the patni on 1st Jaistha, 1343. 14-13-0 only. He has accordingly passed a new decree for that amount and the decree-holders have now appealed. 5. The only point which has been pressed by Mr. Mukherji for the Appellants is that a sum of Rs. 1,400 was wrongly realised by the judgment-debtor by sale of the patni on 1st Jaistha, 1343. under the Patni Regulations on account of alleged arrears of rent for 1342 B.S. in contravention of the arrangement between the parties that the rent and cess of the patni taluk should be set off annually in Chaitra against the mortgage dues, and despite the fact that the rent for 1342 had been already paid, and it should, therefore, be deducted from the amount for which credit has been given to the judgment-debtor by the lower Court. His contentions are that the full amount of rent and cess for 1343, viz., Rs. 6,558-1-0 was not for this reason set off against the mortgage dues, but only the amount of Rs. 5,497 shown in the execution petition; and that even if the full amount had been set off erroneously, it would be quite competent for the Court in a proceeding under the Bengal Money-Lenders' Act to adjust the matter now by virtue of the powers conferred by cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 36 of that Act to "re-open any transaction and take an account between the parties." 6. And to disallow the sum of Rs. 1,400 which, it is not disputed, was realised by the judgment-debtors in 1343 on account of the rent and cess for 1342 B.S. 7. Mr. Ghosh, on the other hand, in his argument for the Respondent, has contended that the full amount of Rs. 6,558-1-0 was set off against the mortgage dues in Chaitra, 1343 B. S. and that even if it be assumed that the judgment-debtor, as landlord, wrongly realised a sum of Rs. 1,400 from the decree-holders in their capacity of patnidars, no relief can be given to the decree-holders in these proceedings, but such wrongful realisation would constitute a distinct cause of action for which other proceedings would be or would have been available to them. We think on the whole that his contentions are sound and must prevail. 8. 1,400 from the decree-holders in their capacity of patnidars, no relief can be given to the decree-holders in these proceedings, but such wrongful realisation would constitute a distinct cause of action for which other proceedings would be or would have been available to them. We think on the whole that his contentions are sound and must prevail. 8. There is no dispute that the arrangement between the decree-holders and the judgment-debtor was that the rent and cess payable by the patnidars, decree-holders, would be set off annually against the amounts due under the mortgage decree by the landlord judgment-debtor, or that the rent and cess was realised in full and credited in this manner for 1342 B.S. Rent receipt Exts. 1 (a) to 1 (d) show realisation of the full amount of Rs. 6,558-1-0 for 1342 by four instalments in that year, the last being on 16th Chaitra. Similarly Rent Receipts Exs. 1 (e) to 1 (g) show realisation of the full amount of Rs. 6,558-1-0 for 1343 by three instalments, the last being on 2nd Chaitra and prima facie, there is no reason to suppose that the full amount was not set off as was done in 1342. We have not, it is true, the books of the Company before us, but we find in the judgment of the lower Court, against which this appeal has been preferred, an observation that other payments received by the Plaintiff after the decree and supported by the Plaintiff's papers filed in Court and also admitted on the Plaintiff's behalf are the following: Rs. 6,683-8-6 in Chaitra 1343 B.S. 9. It was urged by Mr. Mukherji that we should place no reliance on this observation, but there are no materials which would, in our opinion, justify us in supposing that the learned lower Court was under any misapprehension or committed any mistake in the matter; the correctness of these remarks has not been challenged by any affidavit or in the memorandum of appeal. We find moreover in the evidence of the Company's officer in the miscellaneous case in the execution proceedings to which, amongst other papers of that case, reference was made at the time of hearing with the consent of both parties, the following material statement Rs. We find moreover in the evidence of the Company's officer in the miscellaneous case in the execution proceedings to which, amongst other papers of that case, reference was made at the time of hearing with the consent of both parties, the following material statement Rs. 7,898 was the amount due for rent of 1342 and we credited this for the hist of 1342 B.S. This included the rent for 1341 to some portion. The adjustment was made on the same day We have the entries in the rohar that the amount was credited towards kist of 1342 B.S. In 1343 besides cash of Rs. 125 odd, Rs. 6,558-1.0 was paid by setting off rent and cess due from us. 10. We are satisfied from this evidence that the full amount of rent and cess, Rs. 6,558-1-0 was in fact paid by set-off in 1343 towards satisfaction of the mortgage dues. It was of course a "notional" payment; it was not a cash transaction, but the credit was just as much a payment and just as binding as if it had been so. There is no suggestion that the landlord judgment-debtor withheld a portion of the rent and cess for which receipts were granted by him, and if he rightly or wrongly realised by patni sale a portion of the rent and cess for 1342 B.S. it would not, in our opinion, entitle the patnidars as decree-holders to deduct that amount from the amount for which credit had already been given by setoff in 1343. 11. The further contention of Mr. Mukherji is that even conceding that the full amount of rent and cess for 1343 B.S. had been set off as claimed by the judgment-debtor, the powers conferred by sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act will enable us now to re-open all transactions and to deduct the amount of Rs. 1,400 realised as rent and cess for a period for which payment had already been made. We cannot agree. In Jnanendra Narayan v. Naba Kumar (1946) 60 C.W.N. 790 it has been held that the Court has no power under sec. 1,400 realised as rent and cess for a period for which payment had already been made. We cannot agree. In Jnanendra Narayan v. Naba Kumar (1946) 60 C.W.N. 790 it has been held that the Court has no power under sec. 36 (1) (a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders' Act, 1940, to reopen a transaction between a lender and a borrower which does not impede or obstruct the relief or reliefs to which the borrower is entitled under that Act and consequently that a sale of property by a borrower to the lender made before the 1st January, 1939, in full or part satisfaction of the debt cannot be re-opened as a transaction within sec. 36 (1) (a). Applying the principle of that decision, we are of opinion that a payment made by set-off in part satisfaction of the mortgage dues, as in the present case, cannot be re-opened, and that the amount now alleged to have been wrongly realised by the judgment-debtor, as landlord, from the decree-holders as patnidars cannot be deducted from the amount already allowed as set off. We might add that the amount which we are now asked to adjust does not represent a transaction between the parties, i.e., between the borrower and the lender, but it is a transaction between the landlord and his tenants. For these reasons we think the learned Subordinate Judge was right in including amongst the payments by the judgment-debtor the full amount of " Rs. 6,683-8-6 in Chaitra, 1343 B.S." and in holding that the full amount received by the decree-holders was Rs. 38,125 and odd. The amount of Rs. 38,140 and odd which he has found to be recoverable by the decree-holders from the judgment-debtor is not disputed. The new decree which has been passed is, therefore, correct and this appeal is dismissed with costs-hearing-fee, three gold mohurs. Mitter, J. I agree.