Skip to content


Pandit Shyam Lal Vs. Badri and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1925All31; 75Ind.Cas.784
AppellantPandit Shyam Lal
RespondentBadri and anr.
Excerpt:
usurious loans act (x of 1918), section 3 - unconscionable bargain--illiteracy and ignorance of legal technicalities, whether a ground of relief - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in..........of the technicalities of law or legal expressions, and that they could not be expected to have fully realised the stipulation entered in the mortgage in regard to the payment of compound interest with monthly rests, the stipulation was undoubtedly unusual, hard and unconscionable; and. probably had its effect been fully realised by the plaintiffs at the time the mortgage deed was written they would not have agreed to the transaction. it cannot be said that the debtor entered into it with open eyes, or the lower appellate court finds, that he was, by reason of his illiteracy and ignorance of legal technicalities, unable to realise the effect of the same. a court of equity may, therefore, relieve him and grant such relief as the circumstances of the case may require. the decision in.....
Judgment:

Kanhaiya Lal, J.

1. This appeal arises out a suit for the redemption of a mortgage effected by the plaintiffs, Badri and Kidar, in favour of the defendant on the 23rd of December 1915. The mortgage was effected for a sum of Rs. 135, which was re-payable with interest at 2 per cent, per mensem compoundable with monthly rests. The plaintiffs pleaded that they never agreed to pay interest at 2 per cent, per mensem with monthly rests, and that the above term was entered in the bond without their knowledge, ' They further pleaded that the interest claimed was, in any case, hard and unconscionable. The trial Court found that there was no proof of undue influence exercised by the creditor and that the terms entered in the bonds were binding on the plaintiffs. It decreed the entire claim of the plaintiffs accordingly. The lower Appellate Court, however, refused to allow interest at -the stipulated rate with monthly rests. It observed that the plaintiffs were illiterate persons and ignorant of the technicalities of law or legal expressions, and that they could not be expected to have fully realised the stipulation entered in the mortgage in regard to the payment of compound interest with monthly rests, The stipulation was undoubtedly unusual, hard and unconscionable; and. probably had its effect been fully realised by the plaintiffs at the time the mortgage deed was written they would not have agreed to the transaction. It cannot be said that the debtor entered into it with open eyes, or the lower Appellate Court finds, that he was, by reason of his illiteracy and ignorance of legal technicalities, unable to realise the effect of the same. A Court of equity may, therefore, relieve him and grant such relief as the circumstances of the case may require. The decision in Ghansham Singh v. Bhola Singh A.I.R. 1923 All. 490 does not apply, because the question here is whether the executants understood and realised the effect of the terms entered in the mortgage-deed, the finding on which is against the plaintiffs. The appeal, therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //