Judgment. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He seeks revision of the judgment of the learned District Munsif of Kancheepuram in S.C.S.No.616 of 1951 brought by him for the recovery of Rs.274-8-0 on foot of a promissory note executed in his favour by the 1st defendant in the case. The defence raised was that the debt was liable to be scaled down under Act IV of 1938 and if scaled down the plaintiff would be entitled to Rs.15. The Court below has passed a decree for Rs.15 accepting the contention of the defendants, instead of for the sum claimed. The case raises for consideration the proper interpretation of the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) in their application to the suit transaction. On the facts found the following were the transactions between the parties. On 19th June, 1927, the 1st defendant executed in favour of one Ragunayakulu an undivided brother of the plaintiff a promissory note for money borrowed. This was discharged by the execution of another note by the same promisor on 10th September, 1930, Exhibit B-1, in the case. In this renewed promissory note the amount due to the promisee was ascertained at Rs.244 and the promisor undertook to pay this sum with interest at 18 per cent. per annum. There were several payments made in respect of this promissory note which was kept alive by successive endorsements until 10th September, 1939, when the note was discharged with an endorsement in these terms": "" On the same date a fresh promissory note Exhibit A-2 was executed in favour of the Ragunayakulu for a sum of Rs.170 with interest at 6¼ per cent. per annum. Several payments were made to Ragunayakulu till 1947 when the note was endorsed in favour of the present plaintiff. Further payments were made to him and the note was finally discharged by the execution of a fresh promissory note on 30th April, 1948, carrying interest at 5½ per cent. per annum which is the note now in suit. The defence of the 1st defendant, the executant of the note, and defendants 2 and 3 his undivided sons is that they are entitled to a scaling down of the debt evidenced by the promissory note, dated 30th April 1948, by treating it as a renewal of the promissory note executed in favour of Ragunayakulu in 1927. The defence of the 1st defendant, the executant of the note, and defendants 2 and 3 his undivided sons is that they are entitled to a scaling down of the debt evidenced by the promissory note, dated 30th April 1948, by treating it as a renewal of the promissory note executed in favour of Ragunayakulu in 1927. The learned District Munsif accepted this defence and scaled down the amount due to Rs.15. The contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff who is the petitioner here are two, viz.,(1) that he and Ragunayakulu were divided long before and that the execution of the note in his favour should therefore be deemed to be in favour of a new creditor and so not subject to scaling down by the application of Explanation III to section 8 of the Agriculturists Relief Act. The finding, however, of the Court below is that the debt represented by the promissory note was an asset of the joint family consisting of the plaintiff and Ragunayakulu, the learned District Munsif refusing to believe the evidence as to division adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. This being a pure question of fact it is not open to the petitioner to raise this issue in this Court. The second point is that there is no legal connection between Exhibit B-1 and Exhibit A-2 so as to constitute the latter a renewal of the former and that if this were made out, the scaling down effected by the Court below was erroneous. I am of opinion that this contention of counsel is well founded. The executant of these several promissory notes knew the difference between a renewal and a fresh note. When Exhibit B-1 was executed in renewal of the note of 1927 proper words are used in order to indicate that the consideration for the promissory note of 1930 is the discharge of the earlier note. When we come to the discharge of Exhibit B-1, the endorsement on it is that it was discharged according to law. It may be noticed that the discharge was effected after the Agriculturists Relief Act came into force and on the same date Exhibit A-2 was executed reciting that cash consideration had been paid on that date for that note. When we come to the discharge of Exhibit B-1, the endorsement on it is that it was discharged according to law. It may be noticed that the discharge was effected after the Agriculturists Relief Act came into force and on the same date Exhibit A-2 was executed reciting that cash consideration had been paid on that date for that note. It is therefore clear that the parties with knowledge of the provisions of the Agriculturists Relief Act clearly intended to effect a severance between Exhibit B-1 and the new promissory note Exhibit A-2. I do not see anything in the Agriculturists Relief Act which prevents this intention of the parties expressed in so unambiguous and unequivocal terms being given effect to. The effect of the transaction was really as if the promisor discharged Exhibit B-1 by a cash payment and received back the same or different amount of cash on the same date as consideration for the new transaction. I do not see why legal effect should not be given to this state of facts which the parties desired to bring about and succeeded in doing it. In my opinion, the suit promissory note can be traced only upto Exhibit A-2 and not beyond and in this view the suit ought to have been decreed for. the sum claimed by the plaintiff. The revision petition succeeds and the order of the Court below in set aside and the plaintiff’s suit is decreed as prayed for. The petitioner is entitled to his costs in this Court. R.M. ----- Petition allowed.