Judgment :- 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit O.S No. 41 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Namakkal the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,941. 50 from the 1st defendant. Defendants 2 to 4 remained ex parte . The 4th defendant is the mother and defendants 1 to 3 are her sons. The suit amount represents the balance amount due under the mortgage deed, Ex. A1, executed by defendants 1 to 4 on 22-1-1961 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 25,000 with interest. The mortgaged property was the suit B schedule property and certain other properties. Admittedly, the following payments were made towards the mortgage amount du :— (1) On 17-2 1964, Rs. 4,500 was paid towards interest for three years (Ex. A2 is the relevant endorsement on the mortgage deed, Ex. A1 to that effect made by defendants 1 to 3) and (2) on 11-4-1965 Rs. 2,812. 50 was paid towards interest for some months (the relevant endorsement by defendants 1 to 3 is Ex. A3 on the mortgage deed Ex. A1). Prior to 11-4-1965, that is on 7-3-1965, admittedly there was a partition in the family of defendants 1 to 4 under Ex. A7. Inter alia , the amount due under the mortgage on that date, was divided between defendants 1 to 3 and the suit B schedule was allotted to the 1st defendant in the said partition. Then on 12-4-1966, a sum of Rs. 6,000 was paid towards the mortgage amount as shown by Ex A4. Then defendants 2 and 3 wanted to pay off their share of the mortgage liability as per the partition deed by mortgaging the properties allotted to them in the partition to the land mortgage bank and obtaining loan from the bank. So, on behalf of defendants 2 and 3, the 1st defendant wrote the letter Ex A8 to the plaintiff on 28-10-1966 asking the plaintiff to give consent to release those properties from the mortgage liability. The plaintiff accepted to do so and accordingly received Rs. 14,670 from the land mortgage bank on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 on 29-3-1987 and the relevant endorsement on the mortgage deed Ex. A1 to that effeet is Ex. A5. The plaintiff also executed release deed, Ex. The plaintiff accepted to do so and accordingly received Rs. 14,670 from the land mortgage bank on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 on 29-3-1987 and the relevant endorsement on the mortgage deed Ex. A1 to that effeet is Ex. A5. The plaintiff also executed release deed, Ex. A9 dated 7-4-1967 releasing defendants 2 and 3 from their liabilities under the mortgage deed, Ex. A1, and in respect of the properties allotted to them in the above said partition. 2. So, according to the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff the original mortgage under Ex. A1 was split up, once the plaintiff accepted the above said course suggested by the 1st defendant on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3 by his letter dated 28 10-1966 No doubt there was no specific evidence regarding when actually the plaintiff accepted to the said course. There was also no oral evidence let in by any party in the suit. However, the learned counsel contended that since, on 29-3-1967, the plaintiff received the above said Rs. 14,670 on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 pursuant to Ex. A8 letter, it should be taken that the plaintiff had accepted to the said course contained in Ex. A8, at least a moment prior to receipt of Rs. 14,670 on 29-3 1967. From that moment of acceptance, according to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff the splitting of the original mortgage had taken place. 3. Subsequently the 1st defendant paid Rs. 2,000 on 6-11-1970, as per Ex. A6, towards his share of the mortgage liability and he has to pay the balance. According to the plea in the plaint, as on 12-4 1965, after the above said Rs. 6,000 was paid, the share of the 1st defendants liability was only Rs. 7,041 and the interest on the said sum from the said date to the abovesaid date 6-11-1970 at the rate of 9 per cent per annum came to Rs. 3,524. 50 and deducting the abovesaid sum of Rs. 2.000 paid on 6-11-1970 the amount due came to Rs 8.565. 50 as on 6-11-1970 and the subsequent interest on the above-said principal sum of Rs. 7,041 till August, 1974 when the suit was filed, came to Rs. 2,376 So in all the plaintiff claimed in the plaint Rs. 10,941. 50 as the amount due from the 1st defendant. 4. 2.000 paid on 6-11-1970 the amount due came to Rs 8.565. 50 as on 6-11-1970 and the subsequent interest on the above-said principal sum of Rs. 7,041 till August, 1974 when the suit was filed, came to Rs. 2,376 So in all the plaintiff claimed in the plaint Rs. 10,941. 50 as the amount due from the 1st defendant. 4. On the other hand, the 1st defendant-1st respondent claimed that he was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act 1938 (Act No. IV of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act) and that taking into consideration the abovesaid payments made right from the begining , the total sum paid came to Rs. 29,892 50 (there being no splitting up of the mortgage debt) and that the said figure having exceeded the principal mortgage sum of Rs. 25,000 under Ex. A1, no further amount was due as per S. 8(3) of the Act. There was also an endorsement made on 12-7 1979 while the suit was pending, whe eby the plaintiff admitted that the 1st defendant was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the said Act. 5. The Court below has accepted the plea of the 1st defendant and held that there was no splitting up of the mortgage as contended by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. In this appeal, the plaintiff does not claim the entire amount claimed in the plaint but restricts the appeal only to the extent of Rs. 3,146 as found in the particular of valuation in the memorandum of grounds. 6. The short point urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that the trial court erred in holding that there was no splitting up of the mortgage. According to him, as already stated, the splitting up has taken place just before the receipt of the above said sum of Rs. 14,670 by the plaintiff from the land mortgage bank on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 If that is so, according to him, the only payment that could be deducted from the above said principal sum of Rs. 7,041 was the above said sum of Rs. 2.000. Even according to the said calculation the principal sum comes to Rs. 5,041 and the said amount has to be paid together with interest from 1-3-1972 as per the above said S. 8 of the Act. 7,041 was the above said sum of Rs. 2.000. Even according to the said calculation the principal sum comes to Rs. 5,041 and the said amount has to be paid together with interest from 1-3-1972 as per the above said S. 8 of the Act. However, in the appeal, the claim is restricted only to the above said sum of Rs. 3,146. So, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there could be no objection on the part of the 1st defendent to pay the said restricted claim to the extent of Rs. 3,146 only. 7. It stands to reason and I also, therefore, agree since on 2)3-1967, pursuant to Ex. A8 the plaintiff received the abovesaid Rs. 14 670 on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 and subsequently executed Ex. A9 also, it is clear that the plaintiff had accepted the course suggested in Ex. A8 at least a moment prior to the receipt of Rs. 14,670 and that splitting up of the original mortgage had taken place at that moment. 8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent however argued that his client could reopen the splitting up and that further, only Explanation IV to S. 8 of the Act speaks of splitting up of the mortgage debt and that if the said Explanation IV is not applicable to the present case, all the payments made from the very beginning under Ex. A1 have to be taken into account and not simply the above said Rs. 2,000 paid on 6-11-1970. Ex-planation IV to S. 8 of the Act runs as follows : “Where a debt has been spilit up whether before or after the commencement of this Act among the heirs, legal representatives or assigns of a debtor or a creditor and fresh documents have been executed in respect of the different portions of such debt, the provisions of this section shall continue to apply in respect of each of the different portions.” 9. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, this Explanation IV is not applicable to the present case, because it speaks of execution of fresh document of mortgage and provides for the case of splitting up of the debt taken place among heirs or assigns of a debtor. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, this Explanation IV is not applicable to the present case, because it speaks of execution of fresh document of mortgage and provides for the case of splitting up of the debt taken place among heirs or assigns of a debtor. But, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that though Explanation IV provides for a case when splitting up takes place in the situation specified therein, it does not mean that, where splitting up takes place in a situation not covered under Explanation IV, even original payments before splitting up have to be taken into account in applying the provisions of the act, to the split debt. In my view the contention of the appellants counsel is correct 10. Further in my view Somasundarathu Odayar v. Kalyanasundarathu Odayar 1 , relied on by counsel for the 1st respondent has no application to the facts of the present case. It only dealt with a case of Explanation III and not Explanation IV. Explanation III dealt with a case of renewal (which is not case here). In that context only the above said (I960) M.L.J. 225 (D.B.) has held that the effect of Explanation III is to emphasise the identity of the debt and that so long as that identity could be traced any changes or alterations on the debtor or creditor would Dot take away the case from the ambit of the Explanation. But the present case is not a case of renewal, but an entirely a different one. Here, once it is found that there was actually a splitting up of the original debt with the concurrence of the creditor-plaintiff also at least a moment before the plaintiff received the above said Rs. 14,670 the 1st defendant-1st respondent cannot be allowed to reopen the splitting up which has taken place pursuant to his own acceptance, as stated above. The other decision cited by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, viz., Ramanathan Chettiar v. Oomanathan Chettiar 2 , can also have no application to the present case. It only dealt with a case of the then existing Explanation I to S. 8. (The said Explanation I has also been subsequtly deleted). The other decision Hanumayya v. Nayudamma 3 , cited by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent also will not be of help to the 1st respondent. It only dealt with a case of the then existing Explanation I to S. 8. (The said Explanation I has also been subsequtly deleted). The other decision Hanumayya v. Nayudamma 3 , cited by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent also will not be of help to the 1st respondent. There, subsequent to the original debt under a promissory note in favour of a joint family (creditor), there was a partition in the family and the suit debt was allotted to a coparcener of the family and the debtor executed another promissory note in favour of the said coparcener alone. This Court, in that context only has held, after referring to Explanations III and IV, that the promissory note executed in favour of the said coparcener could not be traced back to the earlier debt owed to the family. So, this decision, if at all, would only support the plaintiff appellant herein. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and a preliminary mortgage decree is passed for Rs. 3,146 with subsequent interest at 9% per annum on Rs. 1,895. 85 from 17-6-1980 the date of the memorandum of appeal with proportionate costs. Time for payment two months.