JUDGMENT The appellant in this Second Appeal instituted O.S. No. 477 of 1953 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vridhachalam, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,819, alleged to be due to him on a promissory note, dated 3rd January, 1948, executed by the defendants along with another, one Velamarudai, in his favour. There were prior transactions between the parties, and one of the grounds raised by the defendant was that he was an agriculturists entitled to the benefits of Madras Act (IV of 1938), and that the suit promissory note being only a renewal of earlier promissory notes executed by him, the suit debt claimed should be scaled down appropriately in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The learned District Munsif of Vridhachalam decreed the suit as prayed for, overruling the contentions of the defendant. There was an appeal by the defendant which was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in A.S. No. 242 of 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal in part, holding that the suit promissory note merely represented renewals of prior transactions and that the plaintiff could not recover anything more than the amount advanced at the time of the origin of the debt together with the statutory rate of interest prescribed under the Act. A joint memo of calculation was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge and a decree was passed, giving effect to his judgment, as referred to above. The plaintiff has now preferred this Second Appeal. It is now common ground that the transaction between the parties originated as early as nth November, 1941. On that date, the defendant, along with Velamarudai, executed a promissory note (Exhibit A-2) in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,200. Contemporaneously with the execution of the promissory note, the executants of the note also executed a security bond, Exhibit A-1, dated nth November, 1941, furnishing security of immovable properties for the debt incurred under the promissory note. The amount referred to in the security bond is a sum of Rs. 1,500. It is possible that it was within the contemplation of the parties that there might be future advances by the plaintiff to the defendant and Velamarudai. On nth January, 1944, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 500 towards the debt in his favour. Exhibit A-3 is the endorsement of payment on Exhibit A-2. 1,500. It is possible that it was within the contemplation of the parties that there might be future advances by the plaintiff to the defendant and Velamarudai. On nth January, 1944, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 500 towards the debt in his favour. Exhibit A-3 is the endorsement of payment on Exhibit A-2. Thereafter, the plaintiff attempted to recover the debt by filing a suit. But the plaintiff and the defendant came together and settled the accounts, with the result that, on 31st December, 1944, the defendant and Velamarudai executed a fresh promissory note, Exhibit A-4, for a sum of Rs. 930, the total liability undertaken by the defendant as per the settlement reached. On 3rd January, 1948, the defendant and Velamarudai executed another promissory note, Exhibit A-5, for a sum of Rs. 1,192, this being a renewal and consolidation of the earlier debt due under Exhibit A-4. There was an endorsement of payment of Re. 1 made on Exhibit A-5 on 2nd January, 1951, by the defendant. The suit was filed on 11th November, 1953. On these facts, it is plain that the plaintiff will be entitled to sue for the recovery of the principal amount found mentioned in Exhibit A-5 together with the statutory rate of interest at five and half per cent, per annum, it being admitted that the defendant is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act. The contention of the defendant, however, was that Exhibit A-5 was merely a renewal of Exhibit A-4, which was in turn a renewal of Exhibit A-2, and that the plaintiff could recover only the principal originally advanced together with the statutory rate of interest provided for under the Act. A Full Bench decision of this Court reported in S.M. Tharaganar v. Sankarapandia Mudaliar (1958) 2 MLJ. 568 (F.B.)., has now held that if a debt was incurred for the first time after the Agriculturists Relief Act and it has been renewed several times by adding interest at the contract rate in excess of the rate mentioned in section 13 and a suit brought upon the last pronote, bond or settlement of account, the debtor cannot claim to re-open the last transaction and get interest calculated on the original debt at the statutory rate. In this case, the first of the promissory notes was after the Act, having been executed on 11th November, 1941. In this case, the first of the promissory notes was after the Act, having been executed on 11th November, 1941. The debt was therefore incurred after the Act. Section 13 of Madras Act (IV of 1938) is a specific provision with regard to debts incurred after the Act. It must be noted that there is no machinery under section 13 to scale down the debts covered by that provision by tracing the debt back to its inception. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, which deal with the debts incurred before the commencement of the Act, contain express provisions for scaling down the debt by tracing the debt sued upon back to the inception or the commencement of the liability. The learned counsel for the respondent has sought to distinguish the decision of the Full Bench from the present case and contended that, though the defendant was precluded from seeking relief on the basis that the suit promissory note is a renewal of an earlier obligation, yet, part of the consideration for the suit promissory note consisted of interest in excess of the statutory rate provided for and therefore such consideration was unlawful and illegal. I do not think that the Full Bench case can be distinguished in such a manner. If the last promissory note, as held by the Full Bench, can alone be the foundation of the rights between the creditor and the debtor, it follows that the principal of that note is recoverable. It is not open to the Court to dissect the principal amount covered by the last promissory note and find out to what extent it comprised the interest due on the earlier transactions in excess of the statutory rate prescribed under the Act. There is nothing unlawful or opposed to public policy in the act or conduct of a debtor foregoing the benefit of the statutory reduction of his liability in order to perform his contractual obligations. Voluntary payments and settlement of accounts by the debtor without availing himself of the statutory benefits, knowingly or unknowingly, cannot ipso facto become illegal. In view of the decision of the Full Bench referred to above, the plaintiff-appellant will be entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,192 with subsequent interest from 3rd January, 1949 at 512; per cent, per annum. In view of the decision of the Full Bench referred to above, the plaintiff-appellant will be entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,192 with subsequent interest from 3rd January, 1949 at 512; per cent, per annum. The plaintiff has framed the suit as one for recovery of the suit amount based upon a charge created under the security bond, dated 11th November, 1941, Exhibit A-1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has frankly conceded that the suit promissory note, Exhibit A-5, must be treated as being independent of the earlier promissory notes and of the security bond, Exhibit A-1. It will not be open to the plaintiff to resist the claim of the defendant to trace the suit debt to Exhibits A-1 and A-2 and yet found his rights on Exhibit A-1. The learned counsel has therefore represented to this Court on instructions from his client that he is not pressing the charge decree prayed for by him in the plaint. The plaintiff having thus given up that part of the plaint claim which relates to the enforcement of the security bond, there can be no legal difficulty in the way of his getting a simple money decree for recovery of the principal amount covered by Exhibit A-5. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside, and the plaintiff will have a decree as referred to already for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,192 together with interest at 512; per cent, per annum from 3rd January, 1948. The parties will bear their respective costs in the Courts below. The appellant will get his costs from the respondent in this Second Appeal. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, there are no merits in the Memorandum of objections. The objections are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R.M.- Appeal allowed. Memorandum of objections dismissed.