Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.
1. This is an appeal by one Kumarappa Chettiar and another the decree-holders in O.S. No. 902 of 1942 on the file of the Chief Court, Pudukottai, in E.A. No. 1306 of 1953, in E.P. No. 560 of 1952. That E. A. was an application under Section 20 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act by the respondent judgment-debtor, Andiappa Chettiar, for staying the execution proceedings until his application under Section 19 of the Madras Act IV of 1938, which had already been filed, was disposed of. The properties were being brought to sale for the decree amount as scaled down under the Pudukottai Agriculturists Relief Regulation (before the merger of that State with the Madras State). The appellants had contended that, as the judgment-debtor had got his debt scaled down under the Pudukottai Agriculturists Relief Regulation, he could not again claim a further scaling down of his decree debt under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act and get a double benefit. The lower Court overruled this contention, relying on the ruling in Alagappa Chettiar v. Nachiappa Chettiar (1953) 2 M.L.J. 298 : I.L.R. (1953) Mad. 996. Hence this appeal. We have perused the records and heard learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. Visvanathan, learned Counsel for the appellants, urged that the ruling in Alagappa Chettiar v. Nachiappa Chettiar (1953) 2 M.L.J. 298 : I.L.R. (1953) Mad. 996, might not apply strictly to a case like this, and might be distinguished, but, on the learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. T.R. Ramachandran, pointing out to him the ruling of one of us in C.M.S.A. No. 52 of 1954, Visvanatha Pandaram v. Savarimuthu Udayar (1956) I M.L.J. 65 covering the very same point, he had to admit that his contention might not hold good in view of this later ruling. We agree. The fact that an agriculturist obtains a double benefit, because of two statutes favouring him, will not be a ground for presuming against his right to the second benefit as the policy of the Legislature in recent times has been to confer more and more benefits on him, and the Court has necessarily to carry out the law as it stands unless it is proved to be ultra vires and it cannot rectify any alleged injustice caused by any valid legislative enactments. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.