Debt relief under separate statutes must be examined independently; scaling down under usurious loan law required fresh consideration.

Relief under the Andhra Pradesh Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 was unavailable to the respondent against the appellant, and that denial was affirmed. The distinct question whether the debt was liable to be scaled down under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 remained open because it depended on the extent to which that Act applied to the debt in question. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the second appeal was restored for fresh disposal on that limited point.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to relief under the Andhra Pradesh Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, and whether the question of scaling down the debt under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 required reconsideration by the High Court.

Analysis: The appeal was disposed of by following the earlier decision in the connected matter. The Court held that the respondent could not claim relief under the Andhra Pradesh Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 against the appellant. It further held that the question whether the debt due to the appellant was liable to be scaled down under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 had to be examined by the High Court to the extent that the Act applied to the debt in question.

Conclusion: The denial of relief under the Andhra Pradesh Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 was affirmed, but the issue of scaling down under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 was left for fresh consideration by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's judgment was set aside and the second appeal was restored for fresh disposal on the limited point indicated by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the claim under one debt-relief statute is unavailable, the distinct question of statutory scaling down under another applicable usurious-loan provision must still be independently considered.

---