The material facts may be stated. The first respondent for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, executed a mortgage deed dated the 10th August, 1946 in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 5,000 with interest at nine per cent per annum. The consideration for the mortgage deed was made up of the following items: (1) a sum of Rs.2,892 due on a promissory note executed by the first respondent on 8th December, 1935. (2) a sum of Rs.70 taken for the purchase of stamps; (3) a sum of Rs.1,000 paid for discharging the debt due on a promissory note, dated 28th December, 1925 executed by the first respondent in favour of one Vinnakota Yellamraju; and (4) a sum of Rs.1,038 received for discharging the promissory note, dated 24th April, 1935 executed by the first respondent in favour of one Mallina Rattamma. The promissory note, dated 8th December, 1935 was in renewal of other promissory notes, the earliest being of the year 1929. On 1st October, 1942 the first respondent paid an amount of Rs. 2,790 specifically toward interest. He filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore under section 19-A (1) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amending) Act, XV of 1943 for declaring the debt due by him and the learned Subordinate Judge scaled down the debt to Rs.1,191-13-4 together with interest thereon at 6¼ per cent. per annum from 5th February, 1946 till the date of payment. The mortgagee preferred the above appeal. The question is whether out of the sum of Rs. 2,790 so paid towards interest any amount in excess of the interest payable to the creditor under the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 is liable to be adjusted towards principal. The relevant provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 may now be set out: “Section 8. The question is whether out of the sum of Rs. 2,790 so paid towards interest any amount in excess of the interest payable to the creditor under the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 is liable to be adjusted towards principal. The relevant provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 may now be set out: “Section 8. Debts incurred before the 1st October, 1932, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder, namely:-(1) All interest outstanding on the 1st October, 1937 in favour of any creditor of an agriculturist whether the same be payable under law, custom or contract or under a decree of Court and whether the debt or other obligation has ripened into a decree or not, shall be deemed to be discharged, and only the principal or such portion thereof as may be outstanding shall be deemed to be the amount repayable by the agriculturist on that date.......(4.) Subject to the provisions of sections 22 to 25, nothing contained in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any sum which has been paid to him, or to increase the liability of a debtor to pay any sum in excess of the amount which would have been payable by him if this Act had not been passed. Section 9. (1) Debts incurred on or after the 1st October, 1932, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder, namely:(1) Interest shall be calculated upto the commencement of this Act at the rate applicable to the debt under the law, custom, contract or decree of Court under which it arises or at 5 per cent. Section 9. (1) Debts incurred on or after the 1st October, 1932, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder, namely:(1) Interest shall be calculated upto the commencement of this Act at the rate applicable to the debt under the law, custom, contract or decree of Court under which it arises or at 5 per cent. per annum simple interest whichever is less, and credit shall be given for all sums paid towards interest, and only such amount as is found outstanding, if any, for interest thus calculated shall be deemed payable together with the principal amount or such portion of it as is due; provided that any part of the debt which is found to be a renewal of a prior debt (whether by the same or a different debtor and whether in favour of the same or different creditor) and shall be deemed to be a debt contracted on the date on which such prior debt was incurred and if such debt had been contracted prior to the 1st October, 1932 shall be dealt with under the provisions of section 8. (2) Subject to the provisions of sections 22 to 25 nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any sum which has been paid to him or to increase the liability of the debtor to pay any sum in excess of the amount which would have been payable by him if this Act had not been passed.” Under section 8 all interest outstanding on the 1st October, 1937 is discharged and for the subsequent period the interest will have to be paid at the rate provided by section 12 of the Act, whereas in the case of debts to which section 9 applies, though the entire interest is not wiped out, only interest at the rate of 5 per cent. or less, if the contract rate is less than 5 per cent. is payable from the date of the debt. In either case, therefore, a contingency might arise of the amounts paid towards interest being in excess of the amount payable towards interest under the provisions of the Act, but neither section specifically provides for the manner of the adjustment of such excess. is payable from the date of the debt. In either case, therefore, a contingency might arise of the amounts paid towards interest being in excess of the amount payable towards interest under the provisions of the Act, but neither section specifically provides for the manner of the adjustment of such excess. There would not be any difficulty in applying the sections if the entire debt is wiped off in which case under sub-section (4) of section 8 and sub-section (2) to section 9 the creditor is not bound to refund the same. But if the principal amount be outstanding, as in this case, the question arises whether such excess amount should be adjusted towards principal or whether the creditor can claim the principal without giving credit to the amount in his hands representing the excess payment towards interest. There is no apparent distinction on principle between a debt under section 8 and that under section 9 of the Act. In either case, the amount is an excess payment towards interest. There are two Bench decisions of this Court applying one rule to a debt covered by section 8 and another to that covered by section 9. Though superficially the two may be distinguished on the ground that one was in respect of a decree debt to which the provisions of section 8 and the proviso to section 19 of the Act applied and the other is only a simple debt to which section 9 of the Act applied, we do not think on principle any such distinction is sustainable in law. The two decisions are Suryanarayanamurtiv. Viramma1and Lakshmivenkayammav. Venkapatiraju2. In the first case the facts are, there was a debt anterior to 1st October, 1932 which resulted in a decree dated 30th September, 1936. After the decree had been passed, between 1st October, 1937 and 23rd March, 1938 when the Act came into force, three payments were made. The learned Judges held that the payments made should first be adjusted towards costs, secondly towards the amount outstanding towards interest as on the dates of payment after cancelling the interest outstanding on 1st October, 1937 and thirdly, adjusting any balance towards the principal debt. The learned Judges held that the payments made should first be adjusted towards costs, secondly towards the amount outstanding towards interest as on the dates of payment after cancelling the interest outstanding on 1st October, 1937 and thirdly, adjusting any balance towards the principal debt. This is a case under section 8 of the Act and it was assumed that the excess payments made towards interest after the Act came into force, should after the debt was scaled down, be adjusted towards principal. But relying on section 7 of the Act it was argued that amounts paid towards interest and appropriated as such between 1st October, 1937 and 23rd March, 1938 could not be reappropriated and readjusted; but that argument was negatived relying on the provisions of section 8 and the proviso to section 19 of the Act. Lakshmivenkayammav. Venkatapathiraju2 is a case under section 9 of the Act. The question in that case was whether payments made towards interest which are in excess of the interest actually payable under the Act would be liable to reduction of the principal amount. At page 383 the learned Judges say: "It results in the conclusion that if the payments made towards interest are in excess of the amount of interest as scaled down, that excess amount will be retained by the creditor and will not be adjusted in reduction of principal; but there is nothing contrary to general principles in allowing a creditor to retain that which has been willingly paid to him." The same view is expressed by Wadsworth, J. in Arunagiri Chettiarv. Kuppuswami Chettiar3. In our view it is necessary to resolve this conflict. We therefore refer the following questions to a Full Bench. (1) Whether a creditor is entitled to retain payments made towards interest in excess of the interest payable under the provisions of the Act without adjusting them towards the principal? (2) Whether there is any distinction in principle in this matter between a debt to which the provisions of section 8 apply and that governed by the provisions of Section 9?" The papers may therefore be placed before my Lord, the Chief Justice, for being referred to a Full Bench. (2) Whether there is any distinction in principle in this matter between a debt to which the provisions of section 8 apply and that governed by the provisions of Section 9?" The papers may therefore be placed before my Lord, the Chief Justice, for being referred to a Full Bench. In pursuance of the aforesaid Order of Reference to the Full Bench, this appeal coming on for hearing the Court expressed the following OPINION: Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.-The points referred by the Bench to this Full Bench for an authoritative decision are: (1) Whether a creditor is entitled to retain payments made towards interest in excess of the interest payable under the provisions of the Act without adjusting them towards the principal? (2) Whether there is any distinction in principle in this matter between a debt to which the provisions of section 8 apply and that governed by the provisions of section 9? The material facts are these: The first respondent, for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, executed a mortgage deed, Exhibit D-1, dated 10th August 1936, in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.5,000, with interest at 9 per cent. per annum. The consideration for the mortgage deed was made up of the following items: (1) A sum of Rs.2,892 due on a promissory note executed by the first defendant on 8th December, 1935 in renewal of other promissory notes, the earliest of them being of the year 1929. (2) A sum of Rs.70 taken by him for purchase of stamps. (3) A sum of Rs.1,000 paid for discharging the debt due on a promissory note, dated 28th December, 1935 in favour of one Yellamma Raju. (4) A sum of Rs. 1,038 paid for discharging the promissory note, dated 24th April, 1935, executed by the first respondent in favour of one Rattamma. It will be obvious that some of the liabilities were incurred before 1932 and some others after 1932; hence the second question referred to us, namely, whether there is any distinction in principle between a debt to which the provisions of section 8 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act applies, and that governed by the provisions of section 9, becomes material. On 1st October, 1942, the first respondent paid an amount of Rs.2,790 specifically towards the interest, and this amount was appropriated towards interest due to him by the appellant. On 1st October, 1942, the first respondent paid an amount of Rs.2,790 specifically towards the interest, and this amount was appropriated towards interest due to him by the appellant. The first respondent filed O.P.No.83 of 1945 on 17th October, 1945, under section 19-A (1) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amending) Act XV of 1948 for declaring the debt due by him under the mortgage deed, Exhibit D-1, after scaling down the debt under sections 8 and 9 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, and deposited Rs. 2,000 in Court as the amount due from him if the debt was scaled down. The appellant had contended in the original petition that though a considerable sum would remain in his hands out of the amount of Rs.2,790 paid by the first respondent to him on 1st October, 1942 specifically towards interest after deducting the interest due under section 9 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (the interest outstanding on 1st October, 1937 for liabilities contracted before 1932 being wiped out under the Act), but that he was entitled to retain that large excess in his hands, under section 9 (2), as he was not bound to refund any sum paid to him already, and that there should be no readjustment of this excess towards the debt remaining payable on scaling down. The first respondent, of course, contended that section 9 (2) affected only "refunds" or returns of amounts remaining over and above the debt as scaled down, and that there was no bar whatever to readjust the excess interest remaining out of the sum of Rs. 2,790 towards the debt remaining payable on scaling down. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the contention of the first respondent, rejected the contention of the appellant, and readjusted the excess out of the Rs.2,790 towards the debt as scaled down, and held that only Rs.1,191-13-4, together with interest at 6¼ per cent. per annum from 5th February, 1946 till date of payment remained payable under this mortgage, under sections 8 and 9 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. This appeal was therefore filed. The relevant provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 may now be set out: "Section 8. per annum from 5th February, 1946 till date of payment remained payable under this mortgage, under sections 8 and 9 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. This appeal was therefore filed. The relevant provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 may now be set out: "Section 8. Debts incurred before the 1st October, 1932, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder namely:- (1) All interest outstanding on the 1st October, 1937, in favour of any creditor of an agriculturist whether the same be payable under law, custom or contract or under a decree of Court and whether the debt or other obligation has ripened into a decree or not, shall be deemed to be discharged, and only the principal or such portion thereof as may be outstanding shall be deemed to be the amount repayable by the agriculturist on that date. (2) Where an agriculturist has paid to any creditor twice the amount of the principal, whether by way of principal or interest or both, such debt including the principal, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. (3) Where the sums repaid by way of principal or interest or both fall short of twice the amount of the principal, such amount only as would make up this shortage, or the principal amount or such portion of the principal amount as is outstanding, whichever is smaller, shall be repayable. (4) Subject to the provisions of sections 22 to 25, nothing contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any sum which has been paid to him, or to increase the liability of a debtor to pay any sum in excess of the amount which would have been payable by him if this Act has not been passed. Section 9. (1) Debts incurred on or after the 1st October, 1932, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder, namely:- Interest shall be calculated up to the commencement of this Act at the rate applicable to the debt under the law, custom, contract or decree of Court under which it arises or at five per cent. per annum simple interest, whichever is less, and credit shall be given for all sums paid towards interest,. per annum simple interest, whichever is less, and credit shall be given for all sums paid towards interest,. and only such amount as is found outstanding, if any, for interest thus calculated shall be deemed to be payable together with the principal amount or such portion of it as is due: Provided that any part of the debt which is found to be a renewal of a prior debt (whether by the same or a different debtor, and whether in favour of the same or different creditor) shall be deemed to be a debt contracted on the date on which such prior debt was incurred and if such debt had been contracted prior to the 1st October, 1932, shall be dealt with under the provisions of section 8. (2) Subject to the provisions of sections 22 to 25, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any sum which has been paid to him or to increase the liability of the debtor to pay any sum in excess of the amount which would have been payable by him if this Act had not been passed." Under section 8 all interest outstanding on 1st October, 1937 is discharged, and for the subsequent period, the interest will have to be paid at the rate provided for by section 12 of the Act, whereas in the case of debts to which section 9 applies, though the entire interest is not wiped out, only interest at the rate of 5 per cent. or less, if the contract rate is less than 5 per cent, is payable from the date of the debt. In either case, therefore, a contingency might arise of the amounts paid towards interest being in excess of the amount payable towards interest under the provisions of the Act, but neither section specifically provides for the manner of adjustment of such excess. There would not be any difficulty in applying the sections if the entire debt is wiped off, in which case, under sections 8(4) and 9(2), the creditor is not bound to refund the same. This had been held by a Bench of this Court in Ganapati Subramania Iyerv. Gopalaswami Naidu1. There would not be any difficulty in applying the sections if the entire debt is wiped off, in which case, under sections 8(4) and 9(2), the creditor is not bound to refund the same. This had been held by a Bench of this Court in Ganapati Subramania Iyerv. Gopalaswami Naidu1. But if the principal amount or a portion thereof be outstanding, as in this case, the question arises whether such excess amount should be adjusted towards the principal or whether the creditor can claim the principal without giving credit to the amount in his hands representing the excess payment towards interest. In relation to this question, there appears to me to be no distinction in principle between a debt under section 8 and that under section 9 of the Act. In either case, the amount is an excess payment towards interest, and must be adjusted towards the principal if any part of it remains, especially as section 7 expressly says: "Notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of Court to the contrary, all debts payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this Act shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter ". Mr.Satyanarayana Raju, for the appellant, conceded that under section 8, the excess interest remaining must be adjusted towards the principal amount remaining. That is undoubtedly so. A Bench of this Court, consisting of Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ., has held in Suryanarayanamurtiv. Viramma2and in Anantharamakrishna Aiyarv. Sundaram Aiyar3, that appropriations towards interest made before 1st October, 1937, one of the most crucial dates fixed by the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, cannot be reopened and readjusted under section 8(1) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, but that appropriation made after 1st October, 1937 can and must be reopened and readjusted, first towards costs, then towards interest due from 1st October, 1937, and next towards the principal amount due,. and that even payments made between 1st October, 1937 and 22nd March, 1938, when the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act came into operation, would be liable to be reopened and readjusted like that, in view of the express terms of the Act, and that the word “refund” in section 8 (4) means only repayment in cash and is no bar to readjustment of the debt, according to section 8(1) of the Act. They seem to have referred to the date 22nd March, 1938, simply because all the contested payments in those two cases were between 1st October, 1937 and 22nd March, 1938. Mr. Satyanarayana Raju contended that the same Bench (Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ.) have held in Lakshmi Venkayammav. Venkatapathi Raju1 that if the payments made towards interest are in excess of the amount of interest as scaled down under section 9, that excess amount will be retained by the creditor and will not be adjusted in reduction of the principal, and that Horwill, J., has held to the same effect in Mohamed Sahibv. Kunthanmal Sowcar2.Indeed, it is those two rulings which have been responsible for this reference to the Full Bench, the question here being whether they have been rightly decided. In my view, those cases have been wrongly decided. I see absolutely nothing to justify the difference sought to be made out between the provisions of section 8 and the provisions of section 9 regarding the readjustment of the excess interest paid. Horwill, J., in Mohamed Sahibv. Kunthanmal Sowcar2, tried to spell out a difference like this, “Section 9(1) deals entirely with the question of interest. It says that interest shall be calculated up to the date of the commencement of the Act at 5 per cent. simple interest, that credit should be given for the interest already paid, and that the amount outstanding for interest should be added to the principal outstanding, and the plaintiff should be given a decree for the amount so calculated. On 18th November, 1935, the interest outstanding was paid off in full and the plaintiff has made no claim whatever for interest. As he is not bound to pay anything back, he cannot be given less than what he has claimed.” In the Bench decision (delivered by Wadsworth, J.) in Lakshmi Venkayammav. Venkatapathi Raju1, the reason was given as follows: “Section 9(1) stipulates that interest shall be calculated up to the commencement of the Act at the contract rate or at 5 per cent., whichever is less, that credit shall be given for all sums paid towards interest and that only such amount as is found outstanding, if any, for interest thus calculated shall be deemed payable together with the principal amount or such portion of it as is due. It is contended for the plaintiff who is the petitioner that the whole of the process laid down in this portion of section 9 is a process in reduction of the debt for interest and that it does not contemplate any reduction of the amount due for principal. The process is firstly to calculate the interest which would have been due at the rate of 5 per cent, then give credit for any payments actually made towards interest, then give a decree for interest on the basis of this calculation together with the amount due for principal. It is contended that if the scaling down process results in a smaller amount of interest than what has actually been paid as interest,there is no provision in section 9 for carrying over this excess interest in reduction of principal, On the other hand, it is contended for the respondent that the words ‘credit shall be given for all sums paid towards interest’ must be read as if they were ‘credit shall be given in reduction of the debt for all sums paid towards interest’ and that the final words’ or such portion of it as is due’ contemplate the reduction of principal by the process of carrying over the excess amount paid towards interest. It seems to us that the interpretation of the respondent involves not only the addition to the section of words which are not in it, but also entails the solution of an ambiguity by giving the benefit of the doubt to the expropriator, which, as we have frequently held, is not permissible in interpreting an Act of this nature. The view for which the petitioner contends is in accordance with the plain language of the section. It is also the view adopted by Horwill, J., in Muhammad Sahibv. Kunthanmal Sowcar2, and we are of opinion that it is the correct view. It results in the conclusion that if the payments made towards interest are in excess of the amount of interest as scaled down, that excess amount will be retained by the creditor and will not be adjusted in reduction of principal; but there is nothing contrary to general principles in allowing a creditor to retain that which has been willingly paid to him.” I am not convinced by the reasoning in either case. The decision in those cases would involve far more additions to and modifications in the wording of section 9 than applying the same principle regarding the readjustment of the excess interest to the principal would involve. Indeed, it is impossible to hold that section 9 deals only with interest as it begins with the phrase “Debts incurred on or after 1st October, 1932, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder” and “debts” admittedly include both the principal and interest. Section 9(1) expressly says “and credit should be given for all sums paid towards interest” thereby showing no intention of allowing the creditor to keep any excess interest on the ground of appropriation after 1st October, 1937, and the clause “nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any such sum which has been paid to him” occurs not in section 9(1) but in section 9(2), after the entire process of the scaling of the debt is completed, just as it occurs in section 8(4) after the entire process of the scaling down of the debt is completed, and can therefore have reference only to the return of any excess paid to the creditor and remaining with him after the entire debt as scaled down by him have been discharged. It can have no reference to any readjustment towards a debt remaining, after scaling down, as here. As already stated, it has been held by the same Bench which decided Lakshmi Venkayamma v. Venkatapathiraju 1 in Suryanarayanamurthi v. Viramma2 and Anantharamakrishna Aiyar v. Sundara Aiyar3, that a readjustment of the excess interest would not amount to a refund by the creditor prohibited by sections 8(4) and 9(2) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. I cannot agree with the argument that the agriculturist debtor in section 9 is an “expropriator” and so should not get the benefit, when the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act itself is intended to benefit him. I cannot also agree with the contention of Mr. Satyanarayana Raju, that, under section 9, the Legislature divides the debt incurred after 1st October, 1932 into two compartments, namely, the principal and the interest, and applies the prohibition of the refund of the excess in either compartment. This contention is far fetched and cannot be spelt out of the words of section 9. Satyanarayana Raju, that, under section 9, the Legislature divides the debt incurred after 1st October, 1932 into two compartments, namely, the principal and the interest, and applies the prohibition of the refund of the excess in either compartment. This contention is far fetched and cannot be spelt out of the words of section 9. As already stated the word “refund” does not occur in section 9(1), first paragraph, dealing with interest, but occurs in section 9(2) after the second paragraph of section 9(1), has given further instructions regarding the scaling down of the debt, thereby showing that the scope of section 9 (2) is only regarding the refund of the excess remaining after the entire debt as scaled down is satisfied. Mr. Satyanarayana Raju relied on the ruling in Ganapathi Subramania Iyer v. Gopalaswami Naidu4, and on the general observations therein that the creditor is entitled under section 8(4) and 9(2) to retain any excess payments made to him. But those general observations must be read in the context of that case, and the points arising for decision there, and can only refer to the creditor’s nonliability to refund any excess remaining with him after the entire debt as scaled down is satisfied. In the end, therefore, I hold that Mohamed Sahib v. Kunthanmal Sowcar5 and Lakshmi Venkayamma v. Venkatapathiraju1 were wrongly decided. My answer to the points referred to us is as follows: (1) A creditor is not entitled to retain payments made after 1st October, 1937 towards interest in excess of the interest payable under the provisions of the Act without adjusting them towards the principal; and (2) In regard to this matter, there is no distinction in principle between a debt to which the provisions of section 8 apply and that governed by the provisions of section 9. Subba Rao, J.-I agree. Balakriskna Ayyar, J.-I too agree. (After the opinion of the Full Bench this appeal coming on for hearing before Subba Rao, J., on 8th September, 1950, the Court delivered the following): JUDGMENT:-Following the Full Bench decision in A.A.O.No.142 of 1947 the A.A.O.No.142 of 1947 is dismissed with costs. K.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.