JUDGMENT Mulla, J.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit instituted on the basis of a pronote for Rs. 10,169. The pronote in question was executed on 23rd January 1937. The plaintiff-appellant claimed a total amount of Rs. 11,965. In resisting the suit the defendant, who is now the sole respondent in this appeal, pleaded that he was an agriculturist and entitled to relief under Sections 32 and 39, Agriculturists' Relief Act. He alleged that it was the duty of the plaintiff-appellant to maintain a correct account of the transaction in question and to send a copy of that account to him and his failure to do so made the plaintiff liable to lose his interest and his costs. He further pleaded that under Section 39, Agriculturists' Relief Act, the plaintiff was bound to give a copy of the pronote in question to the defendant and his failure to do so made him liable to the penalty provided by Sub-section (3) of that section which runs as follows:
No interest shall accrue on any loan until a copy of a written document prepared according to the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) has been supplied to the debtor as required by Sub-section (1).
2. The Court below has found that the defendant was an agriculturist and consequently entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. It, however, came to the conclusion that the defendant could not take any advantage of Section 32, Agriculturists' Relief Act because the plaintiff was not a creditor as contemplated by that section. It found, however, that under Section 39, Agriculturists' Relief Act the pronote in suit having been executed after the date on which the Act came into force, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to supply the defendant with a copy of the written document, which was the pronote in the present ease, as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act. The failure of the plaintiff to comply with that mandatory provision of the law made him liable to the penalty prescribed by Sub-section (3) of Section 39 which has already been referred to above. Taking that view, the learned Civil Judge has partly decreed the plaintiff's claim, without allowing him any interest on the amount claimed by him. It may be stated here that though the pronote was executed ostensibly for a sum of Rs. 10,169, yet the lower Court found that the real amount for which it was executed was only Rupees 9000 odd and that the total amount due to the plaintiff from the defendant at the date of the execution of the pronote in suit was not Rs. 10,169 but only Rs. 9605. The plaintiff's claim has accordingly been decreed for that amount with proportionate costs, no interest being allowed. It appears that the plaintiff-appellant had obtained a decree for Rs. 24,226-6-0 against the father of the defendant-respondent in Suit No. 61 of 1925. The exact date of this decree is not known. It is admitted, however, that on 26th November 1935, the defendant-respondent paid Rs. 15,000 towards the decree. The decree had been put into execution for a sum of Rs. 24,120 only. On this calculation the amount which remained due from the defendant-respondent under the decree was only Rs. 9120. From the judgment of the learned Civil Judge it would appear that the decree was amended in some way or another and the amount remaining unpaid under it was Rs. 9185 and that at the rate of interest provided in the decree that amount could have swelled only to Rs. 9605 at the date of the execution of the pronote in suit, that is, 23rd January 1987. In this connection it is instructive to refer to the recital in the pronote in suit itself in order to understand the nature of the transaction. The document runs as follows:
Received a sum of Rs. 10,169 in King's coin half of which comes to Rs. 5084-8-0 of the said coin the amount that remains due under the decree passed in Suit No. 61 of 1925-Chaudhari Padam Singh aforesaid v. Rao Brij Rao Saran Singh rais of Saharanpur by way of loan in exchange for the aforesaid decree.
3. It is quite evident, therefore, that what the parties contemplated at the time of the execution of the pronote in question was that a sum of Rs. 10,169 was really due under the decree. That was, however, a mistake because, as pointed out by the learned Civil Judge, the amount remaining due under the decree was only Rs. 9135 which swelled to us. 9605 at the date of the execution of the pronote in suit, that is, 23rd January 1937. The defendant raised a plea in his written statement that there was a mistake in calculating the amount due under the decree at the time of the execution of the pronote and the learned Civil Judge has allowed that plea to prevail and given the defendant-respondent relief by. reducing the sum of Rs. 10,169 to Rs. 9605 which was really due under the decree and which was really in the contemplation of the parties at the time of the execution of the pronote in suit. The only real question to be considered in this appeal is : Whether the transaction evidenced by the pronote in suit was a loan as contemplated by Section 2 (10) (a), Agriculturists' Belief Act, which runs as follows:
Loan means an advance to an agriculturist whether of money or in kind, and shall include any transaction which is in substance a loan....
4. The learned Civil Judge has answered that question in the affirmative on the ground that the execution of the pronote in suit amounted to a renewal of the previous loan upon which the decree obtained by the plaintiff-appellant was based and in accordance with the Full Bench case of this Court in Pratap Singh v. Gulzari Lal ('42) 29 A.I.R. 1942 All 50 the renewal of a loan is itself a loan, that is, a transaction which is in substance, a loan as contemplated by Section 2 (10) (a), U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The Full Bench approved the decision of Rachhpal Singh J. in Bhim Sen v. Raghubir Saran ('39) 26 A.I.R. 1939 All. 641. Proceeding on this basis, the learned Civil Judge has held that the pronote in suit evidenced a transaction which was in substance a loan within the meaning of Section 2 (10) (a), U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. We find ourselves in accord with that conclusion but on slightly different grounds.
5. We do not think that the pronote in suit was the renewal of any previous loan. Indeed there is nothing to show that there was any loan within the meaning of the Agriculturists' Relief Act which formed the basis of the decree obtained by the plaintiff-appellant against the father of the defendant-respondent. All that we have before us is the fact that there was a decree obtained by the plaintiff-appellant against the father of the defendant-respondent part of which was paid up by the defendant-respondent on 26th November 1935. In our view the loan, if any, upon which the decree in question was based, came to an end with the decree itself which was put into execution and the pronote in suit, the consideration for which was a part of the amount remaining due under the' decree, cannot be said to be the renewal of any previous loan. The question however remains whether the execution of the pronote in suit was not in itself a transaction which was in substance a loan within the meaning of Section 2 (10) (a) and we think that the answer must be in the affirmative. It is evident that if the sum of Rs. 9000 odd had actually been advanced on 23rd January 1937 and a pronote had been obtained by the plaintiff-appellant from the defendant-respondent, there could be no doubt that the transaction would have been a loan. We do not see any difference in principle in the money due under the decree, though not actually paid at the time, being treated as an advance to the defendant-respondent and the pronote in suit being obtained from him. In our judgment this transaction was clearly a transaction which was in substance a loan as contemplated by the Agriculturists' Relief Act. It is true that no money was paid in cash or no advance was made in kind at the time, but in substance and in effect the transaction was undoubtedly a transaction of loan. The provisions of Section 89, Agriculturists' Relief Act, must therefore come into operation and if the plaintiff-appellant is unable to satisfy the Court that he gave a copy of the written document, that is, the pronote in suit, to the defendant-respondent, he must be deemed to be liable to the penalty provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 39 with the result that no interest shall be deemed to have accrued at all on the amount of the pronote.
6. An attempt was made on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant to argue that there was some evidence to show that a draft of the pro-note was prepared and was given to the defendant-respondent when the pronote in suit was executed, but it is obvious that a draft as described by the learned Civil Judge cannot possibly be deemed to be a copy of the pronote in question which the plaintiff-appellant was bound under the law to give to the defendant-respondent. It is thus evident that the plaintiff-appellant was rightly deprived by the learned Civil Judge of any interest upon the amount of the pronote. The only other point which need be considered is whether the Court below had power to reduce the amount of the pronote in suit from Rs. 10,169 to Rs. 9605. We have already stated the circumstances in which the reduction was made by the Court below on the ground that what the parties themselves intended was that the pronote was being executed as a loan by way of exchange for the amount due under the decree and hence it was only a mistake that the sum of Rs. 10,169 was mentioned in the pronote. We think that in these circumstances the Court below was fully entitled to reduce the amount of the pronote to Rs. 9605. The result, therefore, is that we see no reason to interfere and dismiss this appeal with costs.