P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is filed by union Bank of India, Pamarru, represented by its Branch Manager, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Court below on the ground that the defendants/ respondents are entitled to the benefits of the provisions of A. P. Agriculturists Debt relief Act, 1938 (in short called as Act IV of 1938 ). ( 2 ) THE Appeal is dismissed for default against Respondent No. 2. The appellant/ plaintiff filed O. S. No. 13 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Addanki. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 50,574. 10 ps. , by sale of the plaint schedule lands mortgaged by the first defendant by passing a preliminary decree with an interest as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. ( 3 ) IT is pleaded by the appellant- plaintiff Bank that the 1st respondent/1st defendant approached the plaintiff for agricultural crop loan and he mortgaged the plaint schedule lands by executing a simple mortgage deed dated 22. 8. 1973 for rs. 10,000/- and it is a continuing one for the amounts borrowed and to be borrowed from the plaintiff-bank and on 26. 7. 1976 he availed Rs. 7,000/- and on 20. 9. 1976 he availed Rs. 3,000/- and executed demand promissory notes for the said amounts agreeing to repay them with interest at 3 1/2% p. a. , over and above the bank rate with a minimum of 12 1/2% p. a. , with half yearly rests. It is also pleaded that he agreed to discharge the loans on or before 31. 5. 1979 and on failure, to pay additional interest at 2% p. a. and he failed to repay the loan amounts. It is also pleaded that on 8. 2. 1978, he applied for conversion of the above loan into a medium term loan payable before May, 1979 and his request was considered accordingly. On 23. 10. 1978 he verified his account and found that rs. 10,825. 00 was due to be payable by him and he executed a promissory note for that amount agreeing to repay it with interest at 13% p. a. , with half-yearly rests and on failure to pay it by 31. 5. 1979, to pay additional interest at 2% p. a. and he executed an agreement of hypothecation of standing crops. 10,825. 00 was due to be payable by him and he executed a promissory note for that amount agreeing to repay it with interest at 13% p. a. , with half-yearly rests and on failure to pay it by 31. 5. 1979, to pay additional interest at 2% p. a. and he executed an agreement of hypothecation of standing crops. Defendants 2 and 3 executed an indemnity and guarantee agreeing themselves as sureties for the due discharge of the said loan. The 1st defendant applied for a further loan of Rs. 7,000/- and it was sanctioned in Account No. AG. STC. 3035/78, which was opened in the name of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant availed the loan by withdrawing Rs. 5,000/- on 26. 10. 1978 and Rs. 2,000/- on 14. 11. 1978 and by executing Promissory Notes agreeing to repay the amounts with interest at 13% p. a. , with half-yearly rests. He agreed to discharge the loan on or before 31. 5. 1979 and on failure, to pay additional interest at 2% p. a. , and he executed an agreement of hypothecation of standing crops. Defendants 3 and 4 stood as guarantors to him by executing an indemnity and guarantee agreement. As the 1 st defendant was given an additional loan limit upto Rs. 15,000/- he execute another simple mortgage deed dated 7. 10. 1978 creating hypothecation over the plaint schedule land and he failed to repay the amounts. Hence this siut was filed. ( 4 ) THE 4th defendant remained exparte. ( 5 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was also adopted by the 3rd defendant. There is no serious contest as far as the transactions are concerned. No doubt, the 1st defendant expressed his inability to pay the loan amount and how the bank officials had obtained his signatures in this regard and also affixed stamps on white papers and some other papers stating that he need not pay the loan immediately and certain transactions are barred by time. Further a specific plea was taken that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The 2nd defendant also filed a written statement stating that taking advantage of his not having worldly knowledge, the bank officials obtained his signatures on blank papers and stamps affixed on white papers and printed forms. Further a specific plea was taken that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The 2nd defendant also filed a written statement stating that taking advantage of his not having worldly knowledge, the bank officials obtained his signatures on blank papers and stamps affixed on white papers and printed forms. He is an agriculturist and the interest claimed is usurious and he is entitled for the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and on the strength of the pleadings of parties, the following issues are settled. 1. Whether the interest claimed by the bank is unreasonable and usurious? 2. Whether the suit is in time? 3. Whether the defendants are not entitled for the benefits of Act IV of 1938? 4. Whether the plaintiff has not explained the contents of the documents to defendants and obtained their signatures on blank papers? 5. To what relief? ( 6 ) HOWEVER, a memo was filed by the Counsel representing the respondent that he was confining his contest regarding his plea relating to the benefits under Act IV of 1938 and was giving up the other defences and hence the issues which arose for consideration are as under: 1. Whether the debt is liable to be scaled down? 2. To what relief? ( 7 ) NO oral evidence was let in on behalf of both the parties. However, Exs. Al to A23 are marked and the only contention was relating to the scaling down the debt due to the Bank by an agriculturist as per the Act IV of 1938. ( 8 ) SRI G. Pedda Babu, learned counsel representing the appellant/plaintiff had contended that in view of Section 21 (A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as far as banks are concerned it cannot be said that in terms of the Provisions of Act IV of 1938, the debt can be scaled down in the case of agriculturists. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the judgment of Full Bench reported in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Advath Sakru, 1993 (1) ALT 608 , in this regard. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the judgment of Full Bench reported in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Advath Sakru, 1993 (1) ALT 608 , in this regard. The learned Counsel further maintained that as far as the penal interest is concerned in a suit of this nature and in the light of decisions laid down in Andhra bank, Bapatla "v. Muvva Butchayya chowdary, 1997- (1) ALD 139, the compound interest can be paid on yearly rests but not quarterly or half yearly rests with respect to agriculturists. ( 10 ) SRI M. S. N. Prasad, the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents on the other hand, had contended that in the case of agriculturists, the very charging of the compound interest is bad in law and the learned Counsel would also maintain that provision of Act IV of 1938 are applicable since there is no dispute that the respondents/defendants are agriculturists. The learned counsel also had submitted that the debt being joint debt, when appeal was dismissed against respondent no. 2 as against other respondents, the appeal cannot be maintained. ( 11 ) HEARD both the Counsel. The points, which are arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: (A) Whether the respondents/defendants are entitled to the relief under the provisions of A. P. (Andhra Area) agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1938 and the Act IV of 1938; (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant/ plaintiff entitled to the compound interest as claimed; (c) If so to what relief the appellant/ plaintiff is entitled to? ( 12 ) BOTH the points (a) and (b) relate to the claim of interest only. In Fact, the respondents/defendants had not chosen, but they may deal on any other ground and the principal question which was agitated was the applicability of Act IV of 1938 and incidentally the question of claiming the compound interest as against agriculturists also may have to be considered. In Fact, the respondents/defendants had not chosen, but they may deal on any other ground and the principal question which was agitated was the applicability of Act IV of 1938 and incidentally the question of claiming the compound interest as against agriculturists also may have to be considered. In state Bank s case (supra) the Full Bench had an occasion to consider the effect of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation act, 1949 and the power of the Court to scale down the debt and held such relief cannot be granted in favour of the agriculturists and hence I have no hesitation in holding that the respondents/defendants are not entitled to the benefits under act IV of 1938. But however as against respondent No. 2, the appeal is dismissed. So far as it relates to respondent No. 2 the judgment and decree of the trial Court became final. As far as the charging of the Compound Interest with half-yearly rests is concerned no evidence was let in by both the parties. However, there is no dispute that the respondents/defendants are agriculturists. No doubt, serious attempt was made to show that the charging of compound interest with half-yearly rests cannot be sustained and reliance was placed on the judgment reported in Andhra bank s case (supra ). No evidence was let in by either of the parties and as already referred to supra as against respondent no. 2, the appeal was dismissed for default. But, however, in view of the fact that other defendants/respondents i. e. , respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 in appeal are also agriculturists and it being the admitted fact it is not necessary to remit the matter bach again, for this purpose. ( 13 ) HENCE in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the appellant-bank is entitled to claim the compound interest only with annual rests. Point C : ( 14 ) IN view of the above discussion, the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to interest as claimed, but however calculating the same on annual rests as against respondents 1, 3 and 4 and appeal is allowed to the extent indicated since the dispute is only relating to claim of interest no orders as to costs.