Judgment :- 1. The third defendant who is the petitioner in I.A. 1066 of 1974, is the appellant herein. The facts which are necessary for disposal of (his appeal are as follows: The first respondent-plaintiff filed a suit O.S. 68 of 1964 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,625-50 being the amount advanced towards the sale agreement with damages and interest. The suit was decreed and when the matter was pending in App. No. 72 of 1969, the first respondent instituted E.P. No. 115 of 1971 and brought the property for sale and after obtaining leave from the court he purchased the property for Rs. 15.005 on 10.11.1971. According to the calculation memo filed by the decree holder first respondent, Rs. 14,524.85 was the amount available for being set off against the decree amount and subsequently a sum of Rs. 200 was paid and a sum of Rs. 1,724.85 was available towards the satisfaction of the decree. The third respondent who got the property towards his share in a partition deed in O.S. 26 of 1969 filed the petition under Ss.19(1)and 19(2) of the Agriculturists Relief Act IV of 1938 as amended by Act VII of 1973 for scaling down the decree debt to Rs. 11,723.02 2. The said application was resisted by the first respondent contending that the sale was confirmed even on 3.7.1972 and what was paid to the creditor prior to the Act cannot be refunded under the Act and the petitioner is also not entitled to ask for restitution. The decree was already fully satisfied to the extent of Rs. 14,524.85, by the sale and he is not entitled to ask for refund. Even after deducting Rs. 5,000 allowed by the High Court towards damages, still the plaintiff-first respondent will be entitled to more than what was already paid. The only question that arose for determination before the Court below is whether by virtue of S.8(4) of the Act IV of 1938, the petitioner is entitled to claim refund of the amount which has bean paid to the first respondent in view of the court auction sale in his favour. The only question that arose for determination before the Court below is whether by virtue of S.8(4) of the Act IV of 1938, the petitioner is entitled to claim refund of the amount which has bean paid to the first respondent in view of the court auction sale in his favour. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ganapathisubramania Iyer (minor) v. Alloor Gopaiaswami Naidu 1 came to the conclusion that the first respondent-creditor was entitled to retain any excess payments paid to him and a sum of Rs. 15,005 realised by the sale of the property will be a payment by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder and that amount was not liable to be refunded. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that after the said sale this Court delivered a judgment on 5.6.1974, applying the provisions of S.19(1) and (2) of the Agriculturists Relief Act IV of 1938, as amended by Act VII of 1973 for scaling down the decree debt, the decree-holder is entitled to Rs. 12,222-25 and not the entire decree amount and the decree-holder is bound to return the same, since it is only a court auction sale and not a voluntary payment. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Karnam Ramamma v. Podapati Penchala Naidu 2 wherein, the point involved relates to the method of appropriation namely, whether a creditor could appropriate the two sums of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 925, towards interest or whether they should go in reduction of the principal amount and that the payments were deposited to the credit of another suit between the same parties and they were attached by the decree-holder in execution and subsequently they were paid over to the decree holder by the Court. It is seen from the above Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that it only laid down that the decision in Ramaswami Pillai v. Sankara Mudaliar 3 was correctly decided and does not require reconsideration. It is observed in Ramamma v. Penchalu 1 as follows: “The crucial question for decision is whether monies realised from court towards a debt could be regarded as payment made by a debtor. It is observed in Ramamma v. Penchalu 1 as follows: “The crucial question for decision is whether monies realised from court towards a debt could be regarded as payment made by a debtor. It is significant that the Explanation talks of payment by a debtor and does not include payments made on account of or on behalf of a debtor or by a duly constituted agent as in the cases which will be referred to presently. In such a situation, can a payment which is not made by the debtor himself or by a Court or some other agency, even assuming that they purport to d o so on behalf of the debtor, be treated as a payment made by him. In our opinion, the Explanation insists on payments by the debtor himself. The act of the one cannot be regarded as the act of another even if it is with the implied authority of another. It could only be said that one of them does act as the agent of the other. There is no scope for importing the idea of agency into the Explanation, in the absence of the words ‘Payment agent’. There is no warrant for incorporating these words into it. A legislation of this kind which is expropriatory in nature, has to be strictly construed. We feel that the legislature has advisedly confined it to payments made by a debtor for the reason that he has to exercise volition whether such payment should go in reduction of interest or principal and that any one on his behalf should not be authorised to give such a direction as it would affect the interests of the debtor.” Finally in the said Full Bench decision, it was held as follows: “Having regard to the tenor of the Explanation and the words in which it is couched, there is no scope for interpreting the words ‘moneys paid by a court to the credit of a suit’ as payments made by a debtor. To such cases, Explanation I is inapplicable. It follows that Ramaswami Pillai v. Sankara Mudaliar 2 was correctly decided and does not require reconsideration and the judgment of the lower appellate Court based on it cannot be successfully impugned. To such cases, Explanation I is inapplicable. It follows that Ramaswami Pillai v. Sankara Mudaliar 2 was correctly decided and does not require reconsideration and the judgment of the lower appellate Court based on it cannot be successfully impugned. In Ramaswami Pillai v. Sankara Mudaliar 2 a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Subba Rao, J. (as he then was and Soma-sundaram, J. held— “Explanation I does not contemplate the payment of the amount by a court as it is unreasonable I expect that the Legislature intended that the court should give directions in regard to the mode of appropriation of the amount so paid.” In view of the fact that a later Division Bench of this Court has laid down that the payment made by Court could not be regarded as one made by the debtor and the same has been approved by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, we have to follow the same. The lower court relied on the decision reported in Ganapatisubramania Ayyar, minor v. Alloor Gopalasami Naidu 3, which is earlier in point of time. Therein it was held— “Sub-S.(4) of S.8 Madras Act IV of 1938 saves excess payments from the operation of sub-Ss.(1) (2) and (3). Under this sub-section, the creditor is enabled to retain any excess payments paid to him. The terms of this sub-section are clear and unambiguous and the language is couched in general terms. The operation of this sub-section is not limited expressly or by necessary implication of excess payments made before 1st October, 1973. In the said case, it has not been specifically held that the payments by court would amount to payment by debtor voluntarily. Hence, in view of the ratio in the above decisions in Ramamma v. Penchalu 1 and Ramaswami Pillai v. Sankara Mudaliar 2 the the order passed by the learned Sub Judge is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Accordingly it is set aside. However, the learned Sub Judge has not gone into the question with regard to the scaling down claimed by the petitioner with reference to the decree passed by this Court in the second appeal and the amount payable by him, on the date when the sale took place. Unless the same is ascertained it is not possible to give any relief. Unless the same is ascertained it is not possible to give any relief. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner, is liable to pay more than the amount for which the property was sold and he is not liable to pay any amount. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner that he will be entitled to refund of the amount claimed in the petition. However, it is made clear that in view of the fact that the petition to set aside the sale was already dismissed and it has become final, the sale cannot be set aside on any score. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the lower court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower court to the limited extent to ascertain the, amount payable to the decree-bolder on the date of the sale after scaling down the debt in accordance with the decree passed by this Court and if it is adjusted towards the sale price, whether any excess payment is made, and if so, pass necessary orders directing the decree holder to refund the same, in the light of the observations made in this order, as expeditiously as possible. However, in the circumstances, of the case, there will be no order as to costs. However, by virtue of this order, the petitioner judgment-debtor is not entitled to ask for setting aside the sale, which had already been decided on his application.