Judgment This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes in execution of a small cause decree in Suit No. 1549 of 1955. The decree was passed for the whole of the amount claimed; but the defendant was allowed to pay it in monthly instalments of Rs. 5. As there was default in the payment of the monthly instalments execution was taken out for the whole of the balance remaining unpaid. That decree was passed in March, 1955, after Madras Act 1 of 1955 came into force. The defendant appeared in Court and admitted the claim but did not plead under that Act that he was an agriculturist and as such entitled to the benefit of that Act. Nevertheless as stated above the Court passed a decree against him on more favourable terms, namely, for payment in instalments of Rs. 5 a month. When on default being committed and execution taken for the balance remaining unpaid the judgment-debtor raised objections to the execution, one of which was that he was an agriculturists and therefore entitled to the benefit of the Act. That objection was upheld by the Registrar who was of the opinion that the judgment-debtor may claim the benefit of Madras Act 1 of 1955 for the first time at the time of the execution of the decree and the executing Court, if it finds him to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of the Act, could give him such relief as the Act provides for. The learned Registrar has not adverted to the provisions of the Act. The relevant section is section 4. Clause (1) of that section provides for the payment of the liability in certain instalments notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of Court and the first of such payments is to be made within four months of the commencement of the Act. It is therefore obvious that the decree referred to in clause (1) must be a decree which had been passed before the commencement of the Act. It follows that the judgment-debtor in the present case cannot invoke the aid of clause (1) for the purpose of payment as provided by the clause. Clause (3) of that section provides for suits filed after the commencement of the Act. It follows that the judgment-debtor in the present case cannot invoke the aid of clause (1) for the purpose of payment as provided by the clause. Clause (3) of that section provides for suits filed after the commencement of the Act. The present is a case of a suit pending at the commencement of the Act and decreed after the Act came into force. To such a case, clause (4) of that section will be applicable. That clause provides that where in any suit for the recovery of a debt pending at the commencement of the Act, the debtor claims to be an agriculturist the Court shall if the debtor is an agriculturist pass a decree for the immediate payment of such instalments as would have become payable under the provisions of sub-section (1) and the balance in further instalments as provided therein. This clause therefore contemplates that the debtor, before the decree is passed, should claim to be an agriculturist and to be entitled to the benefits of the Act. That the present judgment-debtor did not do. It follows that in the execution of that decree he cannot be allowed to claim the benefits under the Act which he did not claim at the time when the suit was decreed. This view finds support in the decision of a Bench of this Court reported in Kotayya v. Venkata Punnayya1, in connection with the Madras Act IV of 1938. This revision is therefore allowed with costs. R.M. ----- Revision allowed.