1. The only point in controversy here is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount claimed. The answer to that depends upon what is claimed. Is this damages or is it money paid by an agent on account of his principal? Clearly it is damages. A Pakka Adatia as settled by the law of this Court can at will become a principal to enforce any contract which has been entrusted to him as agent by his original principal against that principal. I have frequently commented upon the legal anomalies involved in this entirely new and unique legal entity. But in this Presidency at any rate we must take it as we find it. When, then, a Pakka Adatia sues as in the present case relying upon his character not as agent but as principal and thereby deliberately protects himself against inquiries which ordinarily are made about the amounts he has actually expended as agent on behalf of his principal, it is, I think, too plain to admit of argument that the claim differs in no respect from that upon an ordinary contract between two principals. It cannot be said that the damages claimed are liquidated damages because by the assertion of his privileged character as Pakka Adatia the Court cannot go behind the rate fixed by the original contract and the rate prevailing at date of breach. Viewed in any light, therefore, it ceases to be arguable that a Pakka Adatia suing in that legal character can demand interest upon the amount which is thus claimed as ordinary damages for breach of contract. This, I believe, is the first time that the point has been definitely raised and that is the only reason why I have thought it necessary to state the simple almost self-evident, reason for deciding it as I do.
2. There will, therefore, be a decree for the plaintiff for Rs. 1,06, 1 2 and costs and interest on judgment at 6 per cent, per annum.