JUDGMENT : B.S. BHANUMATHI, J. 1. All these three appeals are preferred against the decrees and judgments, dated 20.10.2011, passed in O.S. No. 134 of 2006, O.S. No. 155 of 2007 and O.S. No. 135 of 2006 respectively on the file of the Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsapur, West Godavari District. 2. At the outset, the pleadings of the parties in each appeal are stated hereunder. 3........... (a) The plaint averments in O.S. No. 134 of 2006, in brief, are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.05.1994 for his family necessities and to discharge sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% per annum with yearly compoundable rests. Thereafter, on demand, the defendant made part payments on three occasions and made endorsements on the reverse page of the promissory note. When the defendant failed to discharge the entire debt, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 27.04.2006. Having received the notice, the defendant kept quite. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is a businessman and the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 are not applicable to him. Hence the suit. (b) The averments in the written statement, in brief, are that the brother-in-law of defendant, Sirigineedi Venkateswara Rao, borrowed Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.05.1994 for his agricultural investment agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% and at that time, the plaintiff demanded the defendant and the said Venkateswara Rao to put their signatures jointly and separately on blank pronotes on which revenue stamps were affixed, as collateral security and accordingly, they put their signatures on blank promissory notes. S. Venkateswara Rao sold his land and discharged his debts paying Rs. 20,000/- with subsequent interest in the presence of elders on 10.05.2001. However, the promissory notes were not returned on the ground that they were not traced out. The defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed the suit promissory note nor made any endorsements on the promissory note making part payments. The suit is liable to be dismissed. (c) On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. The suit is liable to be dismissed. (c) On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant is entitled to benefit of Act IV of 1938? 3. Whether acknowledgment of debts dated 16.05.1997, 15.05.2000 and 14.05.2003 are true, valid and binding on defendant? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for? 5. To what relief? (d) During the course of trial, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs. 1 to 4 were examined and exhibits B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the defendant. (e) After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 24,534.37 paise with subsequent interest at 5½ % from the date of the suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/- against the defendant and the rest of the suit claim was dismissed. 4........... (a) The plaint averments, in O.S. No. 155 of 2007, in brief, are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff on 21.02.1995 for his family necessities and to discharge sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly compoundable rests. Thereafter, on demand, the defendant made part payments on four occasions and made endorsements on the reverse page of the promissory note. When the defendant failed to discharge the entire debt, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 27.04.2006. Having received the notice, the defendant kept quite. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is a businessman and the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 are not applicable to him. Hence the suit. (b) The averments in the written statement, in brief, are that the brother-in-law of defendant, Sirigineedi Venkateswara Rao, borrowed Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff on 21.02.1995 for his agricultural investment agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% and at that time, the plaintiff demanded the defendant and the said Venkateswara Rao to put their signatures jointly and separately on blank promissory notes on which revenue stamps were affixed, as collateral security and accordingly, they put their signatures on blank promissory notes. S. Venkateswara Rao sold his land and discharged his debts paying Rs. 20,000/- with subsequent interest in the presence of elders on 10.05.2001. However, the promissory notes were not returned on the ground that they were not traced out. The defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed the suit promissory note nor made any endorsements on the promissory note making part payments. The suit is liable to be dismissed. (c) On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 21.02.1995 for Rs. 15,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff created Ex.A1 promissory note with the earlier promissory note available with him with the signature of the defendant? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed for? 4. To what relief? (d) During the course of trial, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the defendant. (e) After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 24,766.67 paise with subsequent interest at 5½% from the date of the suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the date of the suit till realization against the defendant and the rest of the suit claim was dismissed. 5........... (a) The plaint averments, in O.S. No. 135 of 2006, in brief, are that the 2nd defendant is the brother-in-law of the 1st defendant and both the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs. 37,500/- from the plaintiff on 12.05.1994 for their family necessities and to discharge sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly compoundable rests. Thereafter, on demand, the defendant made part payments on three occasions and made endorsements on the reverse page of the promissory note. When the defendants did not come forward to discharge the entire debt, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 27.04.2006. Having received the notice, the defendants kept quite. The defendants are not agriculturists and they are businessman and the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 are not applicable to them. When the defendants did not come forward to discharge the entire debt, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 27.04.2006. Having received the notice, the defendants kept quite. The defendants are not agriculturists and they are businessman and the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 are not applicable to them. Hence the suit. (b) The averments in the written statement of the 1st defendant, in brief, are that the 2nd defendant borrowed Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.05.1994 for his agricultural investment agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% and at that time, the plaintiff demanded the defendant and the said Venkateswara Rao to put their signatures jointly and separately on blank pronotes on which revenue stamps were affixed as collateral security and accordingly, they put their signatures on blank promotes. S. Venkateswara Rao sold his land and discharged his debts paying Rs. 20,000/- with subsequent interest in the presence of elders on 10.05.2001. However, the pronotes were not returned on the ground that they were not traced out. The 2nd defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed the suit promissory note nor made any endorsements on the promissory note making part payments. The suit is liable to be dismissed. (c) The 2nd defendant filed separate written statement inter-alia pleading that the defendants 1 and 2 are agriculturists and they are not businessmen and the provisions of Act IV of 1938 are applicable to them and that the plaintiff has no right to claim compoundable interest. This defendant signed on the suit promissory note only and never acknowledged the suit promissory note debt at anytime and the suit is barred by limitation. This defendant sold away his lands and discharged his debts with subsequent interest by paying Rs. 20,000/- on 10.05.2001 in the presence of elders, but the plaintiff did not return the blank promissory notes containing the signatures of the defendants saying that they are not traced out. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants and the suit is liable to be dismissed awarding compensatory costs. (d) On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether suit claim is barred by limitation against D2? 3. (d) On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether suit claim is barred by limitation against D2? 3. Whether defendants are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938? 4. Whether acknowledgment of debts dated 10.05.1997, 09.05.2000 and 07.05.2003 are true, valid and binding on defendants? 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for? 6. To what relief? (e) During the course of trial, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and exhibits A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs. 1 to 4 were examined and exhibit B1 was marked on the side of the defendants. (f) After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 62,093.75 paise with subsequent interest at 5½ % from the date of the suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the date of the suit till realization against the 1st defendant and the rest of the suit claim was dismissed. The suit against the 2nd defendant was dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is identical and the parties are also one and the same, all the three appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 7. Since the aggrieved plaintiff preferred these appeals challenging the decree granting reduced rate of interest by applying Act IV of 1938 and whereas, the defendant has not preferred any appeal against the decree holding that the defendant is liable to pay amount borrowed under the suit promissory note, there is no need to go into the issue relating to execution of the suit promissory note and passing of consideration therein. As such, it is sufficient to consider now in these appeals as to whether Valavala Anjaneyulu who is the sole defendant in two suits and the 1st defendant in the other suit, is entitled to the benefit under Act IV of 1938? 8. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff and Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 9. 8. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff and Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without there being any pleading taken by the defendant (Valavala Anjaneyulu) claiming benefit under the Act, the trial Court went wrong in deciding the same in his favour. He further submitted that even to claim a statutory benefit, there must be specific pleading in the written statement without which there cannot be any issue framed and finding given. 10. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Abubakar Abdul Inamdar vs. Harun Abdul Inamdar and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 612 wherein in at paragraph No. 5 it was held that no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are foundation of the claim of a litigating party and submitted that even if there is some evidence regarding the facts to apply them to the statutory benefit, the defendant cannot take plea under Act IV of 1938. He further placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of A.P. in Shaik Nurbi vs. Pathan Mastanbi, 2004 (3) ALD 719 wherein, it was held, referring to the decision of Bondar Singh vs. Nihal Singh, that in the absence of pleadings in the written statement on issue, no evidence can be looked into in relation thereto as held by the Full Bench in H.D. Vashishta vs. Glaxo Laboratories to the effect that there must be an averment in the plaint and material facts necessary to constitute a cause of action and a new plea cannot be taken without a factual foundation in the pleadings supported by evidence. The Court declined argument that a legal plea can be raised at any time of the case and it is for the Court to grant relief based on appreciation of evidence on record and evidence. He has also submitted that equitable rule of Damdupat according to which the amount of interest recoverable at any one time cannot exceed the principal, has no application to the State of Andhra Pradesh as held at Para 12 of the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syndicate Bank, Kurichedu, Prakasam District vs. Induri Guravareddy, 1998 (1) ALT 735 : 1998 (1) ALD 530 . 11........... 11........... (i) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant submitted that an issue was framed by the trial Court and since the defendant pleaded that he is an agriculturist and the same is proved by examining DWs. 2 to 4, the trial Court has rightly applied the benefit of Act IV of 1938 to the defendant. He referred to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G. Lakshminarasayamma vs. Bonu Satyavathi, 1985 (2) ALT 486 (DB) which has dealt with the usurious Loans Act 10 of 1918 as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1961 as applicable to the Andhra area of Andhra Pradesh. Though the defendants stated to have raised a plea that they are entitled to the benefit of Act IV of 1938 Act and the interest claimed is usurious and excessive, the Act IV of 1938 has not been considered. Hence, this decision has no application to the present appeals. (ii) Similarly, he referred to another decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court in M. Ramachandra Reddy and Others vs. S. Rajaratnam Naidu, 1989 (1) ALT 265 (DB) wherein also only Usurious Loans Act was in consideration. (iii) He further referred to another decision of the same High Court in Kannapu Reddy Venkata Subba Reddy vs. Goparram Rama Krishan Reddy, 2000 (3) ALT 441 wherein, having observed that the defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of the AP act IV of 1938, it is held at Para-8 that though for claiming the benefit of Act 7 of 1977 or Act 45 of 1987, it should be shown that agriculture is the primary source of livelihood of the debtor and he also personally cultivates the land owned by him, the said requirements need not be satisfied for claiming the benefit of Act IV of 1938. 12. 12. Sections 7 and 3(ii) of the Act IV of 1938 read as under: Section 7 Debts payable by agriculturists to be scaled down “Notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of court to the contrary, all debts payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this Act, shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter No sum in excess of the amount as so scaled down shall be recoverable from him or from any land or interest in land belonging to him; nor shall his property be liable to be attached and sold or proceeded against in any manner in the execution of any decree against him in so far as such decree is for an amount in excess of the sum as scaled down under this Chapter.” “(ii) agriculturist means a person who: (a) has a saleable interest in any agricultural or horticultural land in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh, not being land situated within a municipality or cantonment, which is assessed by the State Government to land revenue (which shall be deemed to include peshkash and quit rent), or which is held free of tax under a grant made, confirmed or recognized by Government. (b) holds an interest in such land under a land holder under the Andhra Pradesh(Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 as tenant, ryot or under tenure holder. (c) [.....] (d) holds a lease of such land from any person specified in sub clause (a), or (b) or is a sub lessee of such land; Provided that a person shall not be an agriculturist if he: (A) has in both the financial years ending 31st March, 1938 been assessed to income tax under the [Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or under the income tax laws of any part of India which, immediately before the 1st day of November 1956, was comprised in a Part B State or foreign Government. (B) has in all the four half years immediately preceding the 1st October, 1937 been assessed to profession tax on a half yearly income of more than six hundred rupees derived from a profession other than agriculture under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920, the Cantonments Act, 1924, or any law governing municipal or local bodies in any other part of India or any foreign State in the continent of India or under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920 in a panchayat which was a union before the 26th August 1930. (C) has within the two years immediately preceding the 1st October 1937, been assessed to property or house tax in respect of buildings or lands other than agricultural lands, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920 the Cantonment Act, 1924, or any law governing municipal or local bodies in any other part of India or under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920, in a panchayat which was a union before the 26th August, 1930, provided that the aggregate annual rental value of such buildings and lands, whether let out or in the occupation of the owner, is not less than Rs 600. (D) is a landholder of an estate under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, or of a share or portion thereof, whether se tely registered or not, in respect of which estate, share or portion any sum exceeding five hundred rupees is payable as peshkash, or any sum exceeding on hundred rupees is payable under one or more of the following heads, namely, quit rent, jodi, kattubadi, poruppu or other dues of a like nature Explanation: The annual rental value of any building or land for the purposes of proviso (C) shall: (1) where the assessment is based on the annual rental value, be deemed to be such value. (2) where the assessment is based on the capital value, R be deemed to be five per cent of the capital value. (3) in any other case, be deemed to be the value ascertained in the prescribed manner. (iii) debt means any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from an agriculturist, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise, but does note include rent as defined in clause (iv). (3) in any other case, be deemed to be the value ascertained in the prescribed manner. (iii) debt means any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from an agriculturist, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise, but does note include rent as defined in clause (iv). (iii-a) interest means any amount or other thing paid or payable in excess of the principal sum borrowed or pecuniary obligation incurred, or where anything has been borrowed in kind, in excess of what has been so borrowed, by whatsoever name such amount or thing may be called, and whether the same is paid or payable entirely in cash or entirely in kind or partly in cash and partly in kind and whether the same is expressly mentioned or not in the document or contract, if any. (iv) rent means rent as defined by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 or quit rent, jodi, kattubadi, poruppu or the like, payable to the landholder of an estate as defined by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, whether a decree or order of a civil or revenue court has been obtained therefor or not and includes interest payable thereon; but does not include costs incurred in respect of the recovery thereof through a civil court or revenue court or the share of the land cess recoverable by the landholder under section 88 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920. (v) creditor includes his heirs, legal representatives and assigns. (vi) mortgagee includes his heirs, legal representatives and assigns. There is no controversy about this legal proposition. In this case, the High Court decreed the suit for the principal amount of Rs. 2,000/- with interest thereon, as per Act IV of 1938, from 05.06.1974 till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Thus actual rate applicable is not specified. (iv) He referred to another decision of the High Court in Cheedey Vamsi Priya vs. Paritala Babu Rao, 2010 (6) ALT 89 (SB) wherein it was held that Section 79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not run in conflict with Section 34 CPC. 13. Section 79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under: 79. (iv) He referred to another decision of the High Court in Cheedey Vamsi Priya vs. Paritala Babu Rao, 2010 (6) ALT 89 (SB) wherein it was held that Section 79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not run in conflict with Section 34 CPC. 13. Section 79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under: 79. Interest when rate specified: When interest at a specified rate is expressly made payable on a promissory note or bill of exchange, interest shall be calculated at the rate specified, on the amount of the principal money due thereon, from the date of the instrument, until tender or realization of such amount, or until such date after the institution of a suit to recover such amount as the Court directs. Section 34 of the CPC reads as under: 34. (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit: Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation I: In this sub-section “nationalized bank” means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II: For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. Explanation I: In this sub-section “nationalized bank” means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II: For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest and a separate suit therefore shall not lie. This proposition of law is not in disagreement. 14. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has framed the additional issue on Act IV of 1938 on the same day when the judgment was pronounced and no opportunity was given at all to the plaintiff to oppose the same. 15. Now, it is pertinent to refer to the ratio in decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant: (i) In Shaik Nurbi vs. Pathan Mastanbi (supra), it was held at paragraph Nos. 44 to 46 as under: “44. There is no averment in the plaint to the effect that the oral gift deed is not in accordance with Section 135 of Mohammedan Law. Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The plaintiff cannot give up the case set out in the pleadings and propound a new and different case. During the course of arguments, no adverse and contrary pleas in the alternative cannot be made. It is for the plaintiff to prove her case. The principle of law is that the plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant's version. 45. From the above discussion, it is clear that it is settled principle of law that even for raising new plea on the basis of provision of law it must have its foundation in the pleadings and in the absence of pleading in the plaint even though evidence is adduced by the party it cannot be looked into for the reason that opposite party could not have any opportunity to contradict the above said pleading. When a pleading is raised in the plaint, the plaintiff has to adduce evidence in support of it. If the Court accepts the new plea based on a legal provision of law to meet the fair plea and to give an opportunity to the opposite party the matter has to be remitted to the original Court for a fair re-trial of the matter to give an opportunity to the opposite party. 46. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, relying on the latest judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Bondar Singh vs. Nihal Singh, wherein it was held that in the absence of pleadings in written statement on a issue no evidence can be looked into in relation thereto and following the judgment of a three-Judge Bench in H.D. Vashishta vs. Glaxo Laboratories, wherein it was held that there must be an averment in the plaint and material facts necessary to constitute a cause of action and a new plea, cannot be taken without a factual foundation in the pleadings supported by evidence. Therefore, I am not able to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the legal plea can be raised at any time of the case and it is for the Court to grant relief in appreciation of the material placed on record and evidence.” (ii) In Abubakar Abdul Inamdar vs. Harun Abdul Inamdar (1st supra), it was held at paragraph No. 5 as under: “With regard to the plea of adverse possession.....one has to turn to the pleadings of the appellant in his written statement. There he has pleaded a duration of his having remained in exclusive possession of the house, but nowhere has he pleaded a single overt act on the basis of which it could be inferred or ascertained that from a particular point of time his possession became hostile and notorious to the complete exclusion of other heirs, and his being in possession openly and hostilely. It is true that some evidence, basically of Municipal register entries, were inducted to prove the point but no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of the claim of a litigating party. It is true that some evidence, basically of Municipal register entries, were inducted to prove the point but no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of the claim of a litigating party. The High Court caught the appellant right at that point and drawing inference from the evidence produced on record, concluded that correct principles relating to the plea of adverse possession were not applied by the courts below. The finding, as it appears to us, was rightly reversed by the High Court requiring no interference at our end.” These legal propositions have not been challenged by placing any contrary view expressed in any other case. Thus, the defendant cannot be permitted to take a plea of benefit under Act IV of 1938 without there being a plea in the written statement. 16. A perusal of the written statement in O.S. No. 134 of 2006 and O.S. No. 105 of 2007 shows that the defendant merely stated that he is an agriculturist and not a businessman as mentioned in the plaint and that as the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff, question of claiming any interest, that too, at the rate of 24%. Since there are many legislations dealing with element of interest payable by an agriculturist, there must be a specific plea regarding the statute which defendant relies in defence or else, the plaintiff cannot be put to the notice of the nature of defence so as to lead necessary evidence as well as to argue the matter. 17. Insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the Andhra Pradesh Agriculturists Relief Act, Act IV of 1938 is applicable. Similarly, an agriculturist can claim benefit under Usurious Loans Act, 1918 and also benefit as a small farmer under A.P. Act 7 of 1977, Act 45 of 1987 etc wherein, upon proof of the debtor being a small farmer, the entire loan itself would be deemed to be discharged under a deeming provision. Every Act has different scope of its application. Therefore, a specific plea is required. 18. Insofar as O.S. No. 135 of 2006 is concerned, as both defendants in their separate written statements took plea on application of benefit to them under the Act IV of 1938, issue No. 3 was framed. Every Act has different scope of its application. Therefore, a specific plea is required. 18. Insofar as O.S. No. 135 of 2006 is concerned, as both defendants in their separate written statements took plea on application of benefit to them under the Act IV of 1938, issue No. 3 was framed. Since it was held that the suit claim against the 2nd defendant was barred by limitation, the trial Court held that the issue in respect of the 2nd defendant is of no consequence. As application of Act IV of 1938 is a mixed question of fact and law and the 2nd defendant who has taken a plea under this Act, has not turned up to lead evidence, nor could it be decided from the evidence available on record that the 2nd defendant is an agriculturist deserving the benefit of Act Iv of 1938, there cannot be any application of Act IV of 1938 insofar as 2nd defendant is concerned. Anyhow, since the suit claim against the 2nd defendant was dismissed rightly as barred by limitation, it does not alter the liability. Insofar as the 1st defendant (Valavala Anjaneyulu) is concerned, the trial Court rightly held that this defendant proved his entitlement to the said benefit. 19. In O.S. No. 134 of 2006 and O.S. No. 155 of 2007, a perusal of the record shows that as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant on the date of pronouncing the judgment, additional issue on the application of provisions of Act IV of 1938 was abruptly framed by the trial Court, without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff on the said issue. Of course, the defendant (Valavala Anjaneyulu) lead evidence of DWs. 2 to 4 in addition to his own evidence, to prove the fact that he is an agriculturist. Merely because in one connected suit in O.S. No. 135 of 2006 which was heard together with the other two suits, the plea was taken by both defendants, under Act IV of 1938 and the evidence was lead on that aspect in all three suits, without originally/initially there being such issue in those other two suits (in O.S. No. 134 of 2006 and O.S. No. 155 of 2007), it is not a fair opportunity given to the plaintiff. 20. 20. It is further contended that for application of Act IV of 1938, unlike in the Acts of Act 7 of 1977 and 45 of 1987, there is no need for an agriculturist (defendant) to prove the extent of the land in which a defendant has interest or that the defendant is dependent on such income and it is just sufficient to establish that the defendant is an agriculturist to claim benefit under the provisions of Act IV of 1938 as defined therein. In this regard, the decision relied on by the respondent/defendant is Kannapu Reddy Venkata Subbareddy vs. Gopavaram Rama Krishna Reddy, 2000 (3) ALT 441 (DB). 21. There is no dispute about the proposition of law in the cited decision. However, in the present case, the question is that the trial Court has framed issue and decided the case without there being a specific plea of the defendant (Valavala Anjaneyulu) about the benefit of Act IV of 1938. Of course, though evidence was lead by the defendant, in the absence of a specific pleading, as held by the Courts in the decisions referred above, the trial Court has erred in framing and deciding that issue, moreover, without giving proper opportunity to the plaintiff since the said issue was framed on the day when the judgment was pronounced. 22. Under all these circumstances, the findings of the trial Court on additional issue regarding Act IV of 1938 in O.S. No. 134 of 2006 and O.S. No. 155 of 2007 is liable to be set aside. No further opportunity is also required since such an issue cannot be framed in the absence of a plea. Therefore, the appellant could make out his case in these appeals in A.S. No. 105 of 2012 and A.S. No. 431 of 2012 seeking to set aside the impugned decree and judgment to the extent of application of Act IV of 1938. 23. Section 34 CPC relates grant of interest pending and post suit periods. Section 34 CPC was referred supra. 24. 23. Section 34 CPC relates grant of interest pending and post suit periods. Section 34 CPC was referred supra. 24. Thus, in O.S. No. 134 of 2006 and O.S. No. 155 of 2007, insofar as interest is concerned, in view of non-application of Act IV of 1938, the suits can be decreed with contractual rate and rests of the interest for the pre-suit period, i.e. from the date of the pronotes concerned till the date of filing the suit and thereafter, at simple rate of 6% per annum (i.e. without compounding) from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/- since the suit transaction does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial transaction’ as defined under Section 34 CPC. 25. In O.S. No. 135 of 2006, insofar as interest is concerned, as the Act IV of 1938 is applicable to the 1st defendant, the relevant provision must be examined in relation to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Sections 7 and 9 read with Section 13 of the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 controls the rate of interest on loans of the agriculturists. Section 7 of the Act has already been noted. Section 9 of the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act reads as under: Section 9. Sections 7 and 9 read with Section 13 of the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 controls the rate of interest on loans of the agriculturists. Section 7 of the Act has already been noted. Section 9 of the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act reads as under: Section 9. Provision for debts incurred on or after 1st October 1932 - Debts incurred on or after the 1st October 1932 shall be scaled down in the manner mentioned hereunder, namely: (1) Interest shall be calculated upto the commencement of this Act at the rate applicable to the debt under the law, custom, contract or decree of court under which it arises or at five per cent per annum simple interest, whichever is less and credit shall be given for all sums paid towards interest, and only such amount as is found outstanding, if any, for interest thus calculated shall be deemed payable together with the principal amount or such portion of it as is due: Provided that any part of the debt which is found to be a renewal of a prior debt 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 of any other person acting on his behalf or in his interest shall be deemed to be a debt contracted on the date on which such prior debt was incurred, and if such debt had been contracted prior to the 1st October, 1932, shall be dealt with under the provisions of section 8: Provided further that where a debt had been split up, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, among the heirs, legal representatives or assigns of a debtor or of 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. (2) Subject to the provisions of sections 22 to 25, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any sum which has been paid to him or to increase the liability of the debtor to pay any sum in excess of the amount which would have been payable by him if this Act had not been passed. Section 13 of the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act reads as under: 13. Rate of interest payable by agriculturists on new loans. - In any proceeding for recovery of a debt, the court shall scale down all interest due on any debt incurred by an agriculturist after the commencement of this Act, so as not to exceed a sum calculated at 6¼ per cent per annum, simple interest, that is to say, one pie per rupee per mensem simple interest or one anna per rupee per annum simple interest: Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, alter and fix any other rate of interest from time to time. Explanation for the purposes of this section, the definition of agriculturist in section 3 (ii) shall be read as if: (i) in proviso (A) to that section, for the expression “ the financial years ending 31st March 1938” the expression” the financial years ending on the 31st March immediately preceding the date on which the debt is incurred” were substituted. (ii) in provisos (B) and (C) to that section, for the expression “the four half years immediately preceding the 1st October 1937,” the expression “four half years ending on the 31st March or on the 30th September (whichever is latter) immediately preceding the date on which the debt is incurred” were substituted. It permitted the States to fix the rate of interest from time to time. Thus, as per A.P. Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 693, dt.22.09.1997, rate of interest not to exceed a sum calculated at 12 ½ percent per annum, simple interest. The 1st defendant pleaded and deposed that payable rate of interest is 12% per annum simple. Though the Central Act stated the rate of interest as 5% per annum (simple) and the AP State Government provided a different rate of interest, the trial Court granted interest @ 5.5% per annum, simple without referring to the source wherefrom it was recorded. Thus, in O.S. No. 135 of 2010, the 1st defendant is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum up to the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal amount of Rs. 37,500/-. 26. Thus, in O.S. No. 135 of 2010, the 1st defendant is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum up to the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal amount of Rs. 37,500/-. 26. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed setting aside the decree and judgment, dated 20.10.2011, passed in O.S. No. 134 of 2006, O.S. No. 155 of 2007 and 135 of 2006 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsapur, West Godavari District, with the following observations: (i) In O.S. Nos. 134 of 2006 and 155 of 2007, each suit is decreed to pay the principal amount with contractual rate and rests of interest for the pre-suit period, that is, from the date of execution of the promissory note in each case till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum simple (without compounding) from the date of suit till the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/-. (ii) In O.S. No. 135 of 2006, the suit is decreed to pay the principal amount with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the promissory note till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs. 37,500/-. 27. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.