JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Parur in C.M.P. No. 2145 of 1959. The petitioner in that Civil Miscellaneous Petition-5th defendant in O.S.No. 80 of 1124 is the appellant before us. 2. The petition was for relief under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 (Act XXXI of 1958). The lower court said: "The decree-holder is a bank. So S.5 of Act 31 of 1958 does not apply in this case-Since the amount borrowed is more than Rs. 1,500 the judgment debtor is entitled to pay the amount under S.4 of the Act Under S.4, the debt is allowed to be repaid in 17 half yearly instalments. The debt for the purpose of S.4 in this particular case means the decree 'debt' as debt is defined in S.2 also includes decree debt and therefore 1/17 of the amount that is found due as per the provisions of the decree on 14-7-1958 together with interest at 5% on the principal amount of Rs. 11585-5-0 till date of payment is the amount due on the 1st instalment." According to the appellant only the amount originally borrowed together with interest at 5 per cent per annum thereon from the date of the borrowing is all that is payable under the Act. 3. The expression "debt" as defined in S..2 (c) of the Act includes a decree debt. The definition does not cover any debt exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of the Act to any banking company as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949. There is, however, a proviso which says: "Provided that in the case of any debt exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949, any agriculturist debtor shall be entitled to repay such debt in instalments as provided in sub-section [2] of S.4, but the provisions of S.5 shall not apply to such debt." 4. S.5 of the Act reads as follows: "For determining the amount of a debt for the purposes of payment under this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract or in any decree, or order of court to the contrary, not more than one half of the principal shall be deemed payable towards interest which accrued due till the commencement of this Act." In view of the proviso extracted in the last paragraph it is not contended that the lower court was wrong in holding that S.5 is not applicable to the case. 5. Sub-sections (1) & (2) of S.4 of the Act - we are not concerned with sub-section (3) - read as follows: "[1] Subject to the provisions of sub-section [3], notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract or in any decree or order of Court, any debt may be discharged in the manner specified in sub-section [2]. [2] If any debt is repaid in seventeen equal half yearly instalments together with interest accrued due on the principal debt outstanding at the commencement of this Act tile the date of payment of each instalment at the rate of 5 per cent per annum or the contract rate, whichever is less, the first instalment being payable before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of commencement of this Act and the remaining instalments being payable on or before the date of expiry of a period of six months from the last day on which the previous instalment was due, the whole debt shall be deemed to be discharged." 6. Sub-section (2) makes it quite clear that what is repayable in this case is the decree amount as on the commencement of the Act-14-7-1958 - together with interest on the "principal debt" outstanding on that date at 5 percent per annum. The expression "principal" is defined in S.2 (h) of the Act. Sub-section (2) makes it quite clear that what is repayable in this case is the decree amount as on the commencement of the Act-14-7-1958 - together with interest on the "principal debt" outstanding on that date at 5 percent per annum. The expression "principal" is defined in S.2 (h) of the Act. "Principal' means the amount originally advanced, together with such sum, if any, as has been subsequently advanced, notwithstanding any stipulation to treat any interest as principal and notwithstanding that the debt has been renewed or included in a fresh document whether by the same debtor or by his heirs, legal representatives, or assigns or by any other person acting on his behalf or in his interest and whether in favour of the same creditor or his heirs, legal representatives or assigns or of any other person acting on his behalf or in his interest." It is not disputed that the principal debt outstanding on 14-7-1958 was Rs. 11,585-5-0 as stated by the court below. 7. It follows that what the lower court has directed is right and that the appeal has to be dismissed. Judgment accordingly. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent.