JUDGMENT.-The defendant in O.S. No. 49 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga is the appellant. The plaintiff-respondent filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,206.30 due on Exhibits A-1 to A-3 deeds of mortgages executed by the appellant in favour of one Veerammal. Exhibit A-l dated 8th May, 1961 is for Rs. 3,000. Exhibit A-2 dated 12th April, 1962 is for Rs. 1,500. Exhibit A-3 dated 2nd December, 1966 is for Rs. 4,500. Under Exhibit A-4 dated 1st June, 1972 the original mortgagee Veerammal assigned her rights under Exhibits A-l to A-3 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 11,790. The fate of interest payable under the three mortgage documents is 12% per annum. The plaintiff-respondent has further averred that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 1,680 towards interest due till 31st December, 1966 and the whole amount of interest due till 1st September, 1969 and the necessary endorsement therefor had been made on Exhibit A-l. It is further admitted that the respondent had received Rs. 100 each on 6th September, 1970, 17th October, 1970, 10th December, 1970 and 8th February, 1971 though the said payments had not been endorsed on the mortgage documents. As regards Exhibit A-2 it is admitted that the appellant had paid the whole of the interest till 1st September, 1969, and made the necessary endorsement on Exhibit A-2. The original mortgagor also paid Rs. 100 each on 1st March, 1971, 20th April, 1971, 7th June, 1971, 7th July, 1971, 5th September, 1971 and a further sum of Rs. 60 on 22nd May, 1971 without making any endorsement. As regards Exhibit A-3 interest has been similarly paid till 1st November, 1969 and necessary endorsement made on Exhibit A-3. The original mortgagor also paid Rs. 100 each on 15th October, 1971, 8th November, 1971, 6th December, 1971, and 8th February, 1972, but they have not been duly endorsed on Exhibit A-3. Thereafter on 1st June, 1972 the original mortgagee assigned her rights under Exhibits A-l to A-3 to the respondent under Exhibit A-4 dated 1st June, 1972 for Rs. 11,790. Subsequent to the assignment the appellant himself paid a sum of Rs. 100 on 14th August, 1972 towards Exhibit A-l; Rs.100 on 13th January, 1973 towards Exhibit A-2, and Rs. Thereafter on 1st June, 1972 the original mortgagee assigned her rights under Exhibits A-l to A-3 to the respondent under Exhibit A-4 dated 1st June, 1972 for Rs. 11,790. Subsequent to the assignment the appellant himself paid a sum of Rs. 100 on 14th August, 1972 towards Exhibit A-l; Rs.100 on 13th January, 1973 towards Exhibit A-2, and Rs. 100 each on 10th February, 1973 and 12th March, 1973 towards Exhibit A-3. Though the respondent issued a notice on 13th July, 1972 under Exhibit A-5 the appellant had not paid the balance due under the three mortgage documents. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant is not an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists’ Relief Act (IV of 1938) (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act VIII of 1973). 2. The appellant in his written statement admitted having received the consideration of Rs. 3,000 under Exhibit A-l and Rs. 1,500 under Exhibit A-2. He however pleaded that Exhibit A-3 mortgage was not fully supported by consideration to the extent of Rs.4,500 but that the same was supported by consideration only to the extent of Rs. 2,000. The sum of Rs. 2,500 as per Exhibit A-3 represented the outstanding interest on Exhibit A-l and A-2 upto the date of Exhibit A-3 and that was how. the consideration for Exhibit A-3 came to be stated as Rs. 4,500. The appellant further claimed that he was entitled to benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972). Consequently he claimed that the amounts paid towards the three mortgages should be appropriated towards the principal of Rs. 6,500. He further stated that he would be liable to pay the balance of the principal amount only with interest at 9% per annum. The two main issues raised by the Court below for decision are as follows: (1) Whether the suit mortgage bond executed by the defendant in favour of the original mortgagee Veerammal for a consideration of Rs. 4,500 on 2nd December, 1966 (third mortgage bond) is not supported by consideration to an extent of Rs. 2,500? (2) Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972) ? 3. On issue No.1 the trial Court found that Exhibit A-3 mortgage was fully supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 2,500? (2) Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972) ? 3. On issue No.1 the trial Court found that Exhibit A-3 mortgage was fully supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 4,500 and not merely to the extent of Rs. 2,000 as pleaded by the appellant. On issue No. 2 the trial Court found that the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972. 4. Before me Mr.S.V. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt to challenge the finding of the trial Court that Exhibit A-3 was supported by consideration only to the extent of Rs. 2,000 and not Rs. 4,500. The trial Court stated that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the plea that the third mortgage bond was devoid of consideration to the extent of Rs. 2,500. It is further significant to notice that learned counsel for the appellant in the Court below made an endorsement that he was not pressing issue No. 1. In view of this endorsement it is not possible to entertain any arguments from learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the Court below that Exhibit A-3 is fully supported by consideration is wrong. I therefore confirm the finding of the trial Court that Exhibit A-3 is supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 4,500. 5. On the second issue Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, raised the following two contentions: Firstly he contended that the finding of the lower Court that the appellant was not a debtor within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972) on the ground that he fell within proviso (iii) to the definition of debtor in section 2 (3) of the said Act is not correct. According to learned counsel Exhibit A-6 is the extract from the property tax payment register for the year 1973-74 relating to door No. 16/1 in S. No. 108-A standing in the name of the appellant. Similarly Exhibit A-7 is the extract from the property tax payment register for the year 1973-74 relating to door No. 16/1 in S. No. 110 also standing in the name of the appellant. Similarly Exhibit A-7 is the extract from the property tax payment register for the year 1973-74 relating to door No. 16/1 in S. No. 110 also standing in the name of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exhibits A-6 and A-7 related to a period subsequent to the relevant dates mention and proviso (iii) to section 2 (3) of the said Act. Under the said proviso we are concerned with four half-years immediately preceding 1st March, 1972 and consequently merely because under Exhibits A-6 and A-7 the annual rental value came to more than Rs. 1,200 it could not be assumed that the annual rental value would have been more than Rs. 1,200 for the four half-years immediately preceding 1st March, 1972. At the same time, the appellant himself produced in the lower Court only Exhibit B-3 which is the property tax payment register for 1973-74 relating to door No. 16/1 S. No. 110. On the same reasoning Exhibit B-3 also cannot be of any help to the appellant. 6. The appellant has however filed in this Court the property tax payment register pertaining to door No. 16/1 S.No.110 standing in the name of the appellant for the half years 1968-69; 1969-70 I & II ; 1970-71 I & II; 1971-72; and 1972-73 along with C.M.P.No.1320 of 1975 praying for the reception of the said documents as additional evidence under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. Mr.Thiagarajan, appearing for the respondent perused the documents filed as additional evidence along with C.M.P.No. 1320 of 1975 and did not dispute the fact that these documents related to the house property belonging to the appellant. These documents being public documents, Mr.Thiagarajan did not seriously oppose my receiving the said documents in additionnal evidence. I therefore allow CM. P.No. 1320 of 1975 and receive the said documents as additional evidence. They are marked Exhibit A-8 series. In the light of Exhibit A-8 series which conclusively establish that the appellant has not been assessed to property tax in respect of buildings or land other than the agricultural lands for an annual value of more than Rs.1,200 I hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972). In fact, Mr. Thiagarajan. In fact, Mr. Thiagarajan. learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded before me that once the additional documents are received in evidence he could not assert that the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972. 7. The further contention of Mr. Jayaraman for the appellant is that once it is accepted that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the said Act, all the payments made towards Exhibits A-1 to A-3 prior to 1st March, 1972 should be appropriated towards the principal and that in other words the repondent-plaintiff would not be entitled to any interest at all on Exhibits A-l to A-3 till 1st March, 1972. Mr. Jayaraman, however has not been able to cite before me any precedent on this question which has directly arisen, under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972. He however relied upon the Bench decision of this Court in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Oomanathan Chettiar1and the decision of the Full Bench in Akilandam Ammal v. Indrani2. Both these citations referred to the question whether the entire interest up to 1st March, 1972 had been wiped out under the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) as amended by Tamil Nadu Agriculturists’ Relief Act (VIII of 1973). 8. According to Mr. Jayaraman, the provisions of sections 8 (2), 8 (3) and 8 (4) and Explanation I of Tamil Nadu Act III of 1938 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act VIII of 1973 are in pari materia with the provisions of sections 7 (1), 7 (2) and 7 (3) and Explanation I of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972 and that consequently the principles of interpretation adopted by this Court in the two cases referred to above should be applied to this case and if so applied the irresistible conclusion will be that even under Tamil Nadu Act (XXXVIII of 1972) the entire interest upto 1st March, 1972 will be wiped out. 9. The relevant provisions of the two Acts are given below for comparison: Section 8 of Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act VIII of 1973. Sections 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1972 8 Debts incurred before the 1st March, 1972, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder namely: 7. 9. The relevant provisions of the two Acts are given below for comparison: Section 8 of Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act VIII of 1973. Sections 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1972 8 Debts incurred before the 1st March, 1972, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder namely: 7. Debts incurred before the 1st March, 1972, shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder namely: 2. Where an agriculturist has paid to any creditor twice the amount of the principal whether by way of principal or interest or both, such debt including the principal, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. 1. Where any debtor has paid to any creditor twice the amount of the principal whether by way of principal or interest or both such debt including the principal, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. 3. Where the sums repaid by way of principal or interest or both fall short of twice the amount of the principal such amount only as would make-up this shortage or the principal amount or such portion of principal amount as is outstanding whichever is smaller, shall be repayable. 2. Where the sums repaid by way of of principal or interest or both fall short of twice the amount of the principal such amount only as would make up such shortage and the principal amount or such portion of the principal amount as is outstanding, whichever is smaller, shall be repayable. 4. Subject to the provisions of sections 22 to 25, nothing contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any sum which has been paid to him or to increase the liability of a debtor to pay any sum in excess of the amount which would have been payable by him if this Act has not been passed. 3. Subject to the provisions of sections 18 to 21, nothing contained in clauses. (1) and (2) shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any sum which has been paid to him or to increase the liability of a debtor to pay any sum in excess of the amount which would have been payable by him if this Act had not been passed. (1) and (2) shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any sum which has been paid to him or to increase the liability of a debtor to pay any sum in excess of the amount which would have been payable by him if this Act had not been passed. Explanation I: In determining the amount repayable by a debtor under this section, every payment made by him shall be credited towards the principal (notwithstanding that he has expressly stated) in writing that such payment shall be in reduction of interest. Explanation I: In determining the amount repayable by a debtor under this section, every payment made by him shall be credited towards the principal, notwithstanding that he has expressly stated in writing that such payment shall be in reduction of interest. From the above it will be seen that the said provisions of the two Acts are in pari materia. In Ramanathan Chettiar v. Oomanathan Chettiar1, Ismail, J., speaking for the Bench elaborately considered the entire question in his lucid judgment. Referring to the amended Explanation I to Act IV of 1938, the learned Judge stated as follows: " The effect of this Explanation is, to put an end to all the appropriations already made either with reference to sections 59 to 61 of the Indian Contract Act, before the introduction of Explanation I, for the first time, to section 8 by the Amendment Act XXIII of 1948 or with reference to Explanation J to section 8 as introduced by the Amendment Act XXIII of 1948 and to statutorily and compulsorily appropriate all payments made by a debtor to a creditor only towards the principal. As a matter of fact, the appropriations already made have to be reopened for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Act and for finding out the amount repayable by a debtor." * * * * 10. However, by virtue of Explanation J as amended by the 1973 Act, this position is completely changed. Since all payments made by a debtor to the creditor have now to be appropriated only towards the principal: the portion of the principal outstanding will always be smaller than the difference between twice the principal amount minus all the payments. In other words, the principal amount minus all payments will always be smaller than twice the principal amount minus the said payments. In other words, the principal amount minus all payments will always be smaller than twice the principal amount minus the said payments. Sub-section (3) as it stands, contemplates the possibility of either of the two figures being smaller than the other By virtue of the amendment made to Explanation I by the 1973 Act, this possibility is nullified, because the principal amount minus all payments will always be smaller than twice the principal amount minus all payments and therefore there is no chance of twice the principal amount minus all payments being in any case smaller than the principal amount minus all payments. In other words, the contingency contemplated by sub-section (3), namely that m some cases the difference between twice the principal amount minus all payments can be smaller than the principal amount or the portion of the principal amount outstanding becomes unreal and has no significance whatever in view of the amendment made to Explanation I by the 1973 Act. After a further discussion of the question the learned Judge observed as follows: "Under these circumstances, we have come to the inevitable conclusion that if the amended Explanation I is given effect to, as we ought to, with reference to sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act, the principal amount alone in case no payment whatever has been made, will be payable by a debtor, because that will be smaller than twice the principal amount and such portion of the principal amount as is outstanding alone will be repayable in case where some payments have been made and those payments have been appropriated towards the principal, since that portion of the principal amount will be smaller than twice the principal amount minus the said payments." Again in paragraph 35 the learned Judge states as follows: "In this particular case, as we have pointed out already, no other construction which will simultaneously give effect to Explanation I as amended by the 1973 Act as well as to the entire language of sub-section (3) of section 8 was suggested, by any one appearing before us. Under such circumstances, only two alternatives are possible. Under such circumstances, only two alternatives are possible. One is to give effect to Explanation I as amended by the 1973 Act and to hold on that basis that under sub-section (3) a creditor will be entitled to the principal amount or such portion of the principal amount as is outstanding, because that is smaller than the difference between twice the principal amount minus the payments made by a debtor. The second is to ignore the amendment made to Explanation I by the 1973 Act altogether on the ground that if it is given effect to, it will wipe out all interest outstanding and such was not the intention of the Legislature inasmuch as it has deliberately omitted sub-section (1) of section 8. For the reasons already indicated by us, it is certainly not open to the Court to have recourse to the second alternative. As pointed out by us already; Explanation I constitutes the key provision in the application of sub-section (3) and it also constitutes a statutory command from "which Courts have no escape. A statute must be construed so that the intention of the Legislature may not be treated as vain or left to operate in the air. If the second alternative referred to by us is adopted, the deliberate amendment to Explanation I made by the Legislature will have to be treated as in vain and sub-section (3) of section 8 has to be applied without reference to the said Explanation I, notwithstanding the fact that the said Explanation directly and vitally affects and controls the operation of sub-section (3) of section 8 The theoretical construction of subsection (3) leads to the inference that the Legislature contemplated either of the two figures compared therein being; smaller than the other. But the operation of the amended Explanation I is to make one figure always smaller than the other. Consequently, the actual working of the said sub-section along with the amended Explanation I does not give rise to any difficulty and it produces, a definite, clear and effective result. But the operation of the amended Explanation I is to make one figure always smaller than the other. Consequently, the actual working of the said sub-section along with the amended Explanation I does not give rise to any difficulty and it produces, a definite, clear and effective result. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the result we have reached is the only result that is possible, having regard to the language of the amended Explanation I and its mandatory character." This identical question dealt with by the Division Bench in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Oomanathan Chettiar1, in relation to Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938 again came up for consideration before the Full Bench in Akilandam Ammal v. Indrani2. Kailasam, CJ. (as he then was), speaking for the Bench laid down the law as follows: " The effect of the amendment of Explanation I to section 8 is that what ever payment has been made, it is adjustible only towards the principal and therefore the principal would automatically get reduced whenever any such payment is made. Thus, only the principal outstanding is payable under sub-section (3) of section 8. As this section specifies the principal which is payable, the Legislature omitted section 8(1) as there was no necessity for providing for the wiping out of the interest. Under section 8 (3) of the Act, before the amendment in 1973, the amount payable was either the amount which fell short of twice the amount of the principal or the principal as was outstanding on that day. It is therefore clear that the framers of the Act never intended that the creditor should get anything more than the principal. The refinement that has been made after the amendment is that whatever amount has been paid will be adjusted towards the principal, which will reduce the principal. The result will be that the creditor will lose the interest as all payments will have to be adjusted towards the principal and the principal will get reduced. The change that has been brought about is that though under the Act before the amendment, the interest paid under certain circumstances was not adjusted towards the principal and thus the principal still remained payable, by virtue of the amendment to the Explanation to section 8 all payments are adjusted only towards the principal, thus reducing the principal amount payable. The change that has been brought about is that though under the Act before the amendment, the interest paid under certain circumstances was not adjusted towards the principal and thus the principal still remained payable, by virtue of the amendment to the Explanation to section 8 all payments are adjusted only towards the principal, thus reducing the principal amount payable. The result would be that even in the absence of sub-section (1) of section 8, the interest would stand wiped out. " The Full Bench approved of the decision in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Oomanathan Chettiar1. Therefore, the position with regard to Tamil Nadu Agriculturists’ Relief Act (IV of 1938) as amended by Tamil Nadu Act VIII of 1973 is that under Explanation I to section 8 of the said Act the entire interest due under the debt as on 1st March, 1972 will stand wiped out 11. As is already seen from a comparison, sections 8 (2), 8 (3) and 8 (4) and Explanation I of Tamil Nadu Act (IV of 1938) as amended by Tamil Nadu Act VIII of 1973 is in pari materia with sections (I), 7 (2) and 7 (3) and Explanation I of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972. Respectfully following the above Bench decision and the Full Bench decision already referred to by me, I hold that by a construction of section 7 (2) and Explanation I of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972) the entire interest due under the deed upto 1st March, 1972 would stand wiped out and whatever payments that have been already made will be appropriated towards the principal and the appellant will be liable to pay only the balance of principal due if any. 12. In the result, I hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972) and that he will be liable to pay only the balance due on the principal as on 1st March, 1972 after appropriation of all payments already made towards the principal due under Exhibits A-1 to A-3. 13. Counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent have filed an agreed statement of amounts already paid by the appellant and the amount due as on 1st March, 1972. As per this statement the total amount due on the three mortgages comes to Rs. 9.000. 13. Counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent have filed an agreed statement of amounts already paid by the appellant and the amount due as on 1st March, 1972. As per this statement the total amount due on the three mortgages comes to Rs. 9.000. The amount paid upto 1st March, 1972 which is now to be appropriated towards the principal as per my finding that the appellant is entitled’ to have the interest due upto 1st March, 1972 wiped out, comes to Rs. 7,965. According to this statement the balance due as on 1st March, 1972 by the appellant to the respondent under the three mortgages is Rs. 1,035. As I have already stated, there is no dispute that if once I hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972) and that all payments made upto 1st March, 1972 should be appropriated towards the principal, then the balance of the principal due as on 1st March, 1972 is Rs. 1,035. I therefore set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, partly allow the appeal and pass a decree in favour of the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,035 with subsequent interest thereon at 9 per cent. per annum from 1st March, 1972. Since the question involved is an interpretation to be placed upon the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972). I make no order as to costs in the appeal. 14. Document marked in the High Court Exhibit A-8 series: — Property tax register for the half years 1968-69 ; 1969-70 I and II; 1970-71 I & II ; 1971-72 and 1972-73 in respect of door No. 16/1 S. No. 110.