JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan and Kaul, JJ. - This is a Defendant's, appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 23rd of April, 1941, passed by the Civil Judge of Rae Bareli in a suit brought on the basis of a promissory note executed by the Defendant Appellant in Favour of the Plaintiffs Respondents. The claim was decreed. Dissatisfied with the decision the Defendant comes up to this Court. 2. The material facts lie within a short compass. 3. On the 23rd of October, 1937, in lieu of a previous promissory note, the present Appellant Ram Sukh executed a fresh note for Rs. 9,852 in favour of the Respondents Girja Shankar and Prem Shankar. The note stipulated for payment of interest at annas six per cent per month. The amount due in respect of principal and interest on this promissory note till the 22nd of October, 1940, the date of suit, was Rs. 11,182. The plaint alleged that the Defendant had paid Rs. 350 on account of interest. Out of the balance of Rs. 10,832 the Plaintiffs relinquished a sum of Rs. 832 and prayed for a decree for Rs. 10,000 only, A number of pleas were raised in defence. They were all found against the Defendant, and the claim was decreed for 10,000 and costs with interest pendent lite and future till realisation at 31/4 per cent per annum. The decretal amount was made payable in ten equal six monthly instalments. Only two pleas now survive: (1) It was pleaded that the Defendant was an agriculturist and the Plaintiffs were "creditors" within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and inasmuch as the creditors had not complied with the provisions of Section 32 of the said Act they were not entitled to any interest on the debt and liable to be deprived of the costs of the suit. Another ground urged in support of the plea that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to any interest on the loan in question was that they had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 39 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act; and (2) That the lower Court should have u/s 3 of the said Act allowed the Appellant judgment-debtor to pay the decretal sum in 15 years instead of five. The lower Court has on the evidence before it found that the Plaintiffs were not creditors within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2(7) of the Act, and we are satisfied that this conclusion is amply justified in the circumstances of the case. A "creditor" means a person who, in the regular course of business, advances a loan as defined in the Act, and includes the legal representatives and the successor-in-interest, whether by inheritance, assignment or otherwise, of a creditor. The Defendant's case was that the promissory note in question was executed in lieu of a debt which originated so far back as 1912, when a sum of Rs. 500 was advanced by the Plaintiffs' maternal grandfather to him. This debt was renewed from time to time, and along with certain fresh advances that were made, the whole amount due on the 23rd of October, 1937, was Rs. 9,852 for which the note in suit was given. It was further averred, and evidence was led to support this averment, that the Plaintiffs' maternal grandfather Pt. Balgovind, was a money lender. According to the Defendant's case the Plaintiffs also carried on money lending business. Four witnesses were examined to support his case. Defendant's witnesses Nos. 1 and 4 are the Defendant himself and his ziledar. They sought to make out that Balgovind carried on money lending business with a capital of Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 60,000, but neither of these witnesses could depose to any loan transaction of Balgovind, except the sums advanced by him to Ram Sukh. Reliance was also placed on the fact that the Plaintiffs paid a tax on circumstance and property. D.W. 2 was called to prove this. He stated that the Plaintiffs were taxed on an "income ranging between Rs. 400 and 518." This was practically the amount due to the Plaintiffs on account of the loan in question, and does not show that either they or their maternal grandfather Balgovind carried on money lending as a regular business. The Defendant's ziledar further deposed that the Plaintiffs once advanced him Rs. 300, and Rs. 400 on these another occasion. No documents with regard to these loans were produced.' The Defendant called the Plaintiffs' father Vishua Nath also as one of his witnesses. Vishua Nath was definite that the Plaintiffs did not carry on any money lending business. The Defendant's ziledar further deposed that the Plaintiffs once advanced him Rs. 300, and Rs. 400 on these another occasion. No documents with regard to these loans were produced.' The Defendant called the Plaintiffs' father Vishua Nath also as one of his witnesses. Vishua Nath was definite that the Plaintiffs did not carry on any money lending business. With regard to Balgovind he deposed that he had no definite information whether he carried on mahalani as a regular business or not. None of the other debtors of Bal govind or of the Plaintiffs was called, nor was any document produced to show that these persons carried on money lending business. 3. In these circumstances the trial Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the Defendant had failed to prove his averment that the Plaintiffs were "creditors." 4. Another ground on which it was contended that the Respondents were not entitled to any interest on the loan was that they had failed to comply with the provisions of Sub-Sections 39(1) and (2), and accordingly it was contended that under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of that section no interest accrued on this date. Section 39 reads as follows: 39(1). Every loan given after the date on which this Act comes into force shall be evidenced by a written document, of which a copy shall be given to the debtor. (2) In the case of unsecured loans, an entry shall be made in every such document specifying the date by which repayment must be made in order to earn the bene6t of Section 39 and the rate of interest which shall prevail if repayment is made by such date. (3) No interest shall accrue on any loan until a copy of a written document prepared according to the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (3) has been supplied ito^the debtor as required by Sub-section (1) 5. It was urged in reply to this contention on behalf of the Respondents that this section did not apply to the debt in question inasmuch as, according to the Appellant himself,' it was only a renewal of an old debt which was advanced long before the Agriculturists' Relief Act came into forces Section 39, it was argued, applied only to debts in which something in- cash or kind was transferred from the creditor to the debtor. This contention was based on the language of the first Sub-section of Section 39. According to the Learned Counsel for the Respondents the use of the words "every loan given" in that Sub-section indicates that the legislature contemplated that this section should apply only to cases where money or some other thing was actually delivered by the creditor to the debtor, and the relation of the lender and borrower commenced between the parties after the Act came into force. Having given the argument our careful consideration, and in view of the authorities to which reference will be made presently, we are unable to accept it. It was held by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Pratap Singh v. Gulzan Lal 1942 A.W.R. (H.C.) 11: O.A. (Sup) 111: I.L. R. 1942 All 186 that where an earlier transaction of loan was renewed, the new transaction was itself a "loan" for the purposes of the Agriculturists' Relief Act, XXVII of 1934. 6. The same view was taken in an earlier single Judge case of that Court in Bhim Sen v. Raghubir Saran 1939 A.W.R. (H.C.) 486: ILR 1939 All 817, where Rachhpal Singh J. held that a promissory note merely in renewal of an earlier promissory note, and without any fresh advance, is a transaction which is in substance a loan and is therefore a loan as defined in Section 2(10)(a) of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. This case was followed by Madeley J. in this Court in the case of Harakh Chand v. Lalta Prasad 1943 O.A 63: A.W.R. (C.C.) 26: O.W.N. 104 We agree with the construction of the word "loan" used in the Agriculturists' Relief Act as laid down in these cases, and hold that inasmuch as the Respondents admittedly did not deliver a copy of the promissory note to the debtor no interest could accrue on the loan. The result, therefore is that the sum of Rs. 350, which was paid by the debtor towards interest must be applied in reduction of the principal, and the Respondents are entitled to a decree for Rs. 9,502 only. 7. As regards the contention that the lower Court should have u/s 3 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act allowed the judgment-debtor to pay the excretal sum in instilments extending over a period of 15 years instead of five is without substance. 9,502 only. 7. As regards the contention that the lower Court should have u/s 3 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act allowed the judgment-debtor to pay the excretal sum in instilments extending over a period of 15 years instead of five is without substance. Apart from the fact that this was a matter in the discretion of the Court, with which there are no good grounds to interfere, we find that the transaction is a very old one, and the Appellant was allowed a period of five years to pay the debt which in the circumstances of the case we consider to be sufficient. 8. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the decree of the trial Court is modified to this extent that instead of a decree for Rs. 10,000 with costs and interest the claim is decreed for Rs. 9,502 and proportionate costs in both the Courts. The Appellants shall get his costs of this Court from the Respondents in proportion to the success of his appeal.