JUDGMENT : M.S. MENON, J. 1. The first defendant in O.S. No.335/1954 of the Court of the District Munsiff of Haripad is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff in that suit - the respondent before us - was granted a decree against the first and second defendants. 2. The first defendant appealed to the District Court of Mavelikara (A.S. No. 250 of 1956) and during the pendency of the appeal - on 14-7-1956 - the plaintiff and the first and second defendants adjusted the dispute and filed a petition embodying the terms of the adjustment. The amount due to the plaintiff under the decree on 14-7-1956 was Rs. 3753-15-0. The material terms of the settlement will be clear from the following extract from the petition dated 14-7-1956: XXXX 3. The Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act, 1956, came into force on 11-9-1956, i.e., prior to the date on which the defendants could pay the sum of Rs.1250 and obtain a full discharge of the decree. S. 4 (1) of the Act is in the following terms: “Notwithstanding any law or custom for the time being in force, or any contractor any decree or order of Court to the contrary, any debt due by an agriculturist may be discharged by repayment of the principal amount of the debt outstanding in ten equal half-yearly instalments together with such interest as would be payable under the provisions of S. 5. The instalments shall be payable on or before the last day of February and August of each of the five years commencing on the commencement of this Act. Explanation - In the case of a decree, the amount decreed shall be deemed to be the principal”. The first defendant filed a petition for permission to pay the amount due from her by instalments as provided in the sub-section. 4. It is not disputed that the first defendant is an agriculturist and that she is entitled to the benefits of the Act. The controversy is as to the amount she should pay under the sub-section. According to the first defendant it is the sum of Rs.1250 by the paying of which before 14-12-1956 she could obtain a full discharge of the decree. According to the respondent it is the whole of the decree amount less the sum of Rs.2000 paid on 14-7-1956. 5. According to the first defendant it is the sum of Rs.1250 by the paying of which before 14-12-1956 she could obtain a full discharge of the decree. According to the respondent it is the whole of the decree amount less the sum of Rs.2000 paid on 14-7-1956. 5. We are inclined to agree with the courts below that it is the contention of the respondent that has to be upheld. The section makes it quite clear that what is payable in instalments is “the principal amount of the debt outstanding” together with interest under S. 5 and that in the case of a decree the amount decreed should be deemed to be the principal. The sum of Rs.1250 mentioned in the petition of 14-7-1956 is certainly not the amount due under the decree. It is only a concessional amount which if paid before 14-12-1956 will be treated as sufficient for the discharge of the entire amount due under the decree. 6. This is certainly not a case of an agreement to pay a greater sum of money on the breach of an obligation to pay a smaller sum which will attract the provisions of S. 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The primary contract between the parties is to pay the entire amount due under the decree less the sum of Rs.2000 paid on 14-7-1956 (See 1953 KLT. 321), and there can be no doubt that it is this primary contract that is material for the purpose of subsection (1) of S. 4 of the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief, Act, 1956. 7. It follows that the decisions of the courts below are correct and this second appeal should fail. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.