Skip to content


Ram NaraIn and ors. Vs. Mahmood Hasan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1936All450; 163Ind.Cas.537
AppellantRam NaraIn and ors.
RespondentMahmood Hasan
Excerpt:
- - he does however say that the court below had no jurisdiction whatsoever to reduce the interest as set forth in the decree up to 1st january 1930. 3. the learned judge seems to have acted under the provisions of the usurious loans act, but that act itself clearly says that in exercise of the powers given by section 3 of the act no court shall do anything which affects any decree of a court......amount secured by the mortgage was rs. 200 and the stipulated interest was rs. 1-12-0 per cent per mensem, compound with six-monthly rests. the court which passed the decree held that the rate of interest was excessive and reduced it under the usurious loan, act to rs. 1-12-0 per cent per mensem, simple. by the time that the decree-holder came to execute the decree the agriculturists' belief act had become law. the judgment, debtor applied for relief under that act. the court below reduced the interest under section 30 of the act from rs. 1-12-0 per cent per mensem to be. 1 per cent per mensem up to 1st january, 1930, and to rs. 9-8-0 per cent per annum after 1st january 1930. the court also directed that the amount due should be paid in instalments.2. the applicant does not.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Allsop, J.

1. This is an application in revision arising out of proceedings under the Agriculturists' Belief Act. The applicant obtained a decree on the basis of a mortgage, dated 16th September 1924. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 200 and the stipulated interest was Rs. 1-12-0 per cent per mensem, compound with six-monthly rests. The Court which passed the decree held that the rate of interest was excessive and reduced it under the Usurious Loan, Act to Rs. 1-12-0 per cent per mensem, simple. By the time that the decree-holder came to execute the decree the Agriculturists' Belief Act had become law. The judgment, debtor applied for relief under that Act. The Court below reduced the interest under Section 30 of the Act from Rs. 1-12-0 per cent per mensem to Be. 1 per cent per mensem up to 1st January, 1930, and to Rs. 9-8-0 per cent per annum after 1st January 1930. The Court also directed that the amount due should be paid in instalments.

2. The applicant does not object to the reduction of interest after 1st January 1930, nor does he object to the direction that the payment shall be by instalments. He does however say that the Court below had no jurisdiction whatsoever to reduce the interest as set forth in the decree up to 1st January 1930.

3. The learned Judge seems to have acted under the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, but that Act itself clearly says that in exercise of the powers given by Section 3 of the Act no Court shall do anything which affects any decree of a Court. The Court could modify the decree only under the provisions of Section 30 and Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Act. Section 5 allows for the introduction of instalments and Section 30 gives only the power to change the rate of interest after 1st January 1930. The Court had obviously no jurisdiction to interfere with the rate of interest before 1st January, 1930, either under the Agriculturists' Belief Act or under the Usurious Loans Act.

4. The order of the Court below is therefore set aside. The Court will pass a new order on the assumption that it cannot interfere with the rate of interest before 1st January 1930. The rate of interest already fixed by the Court for the period after 1st January 1930 will remain undisturbed. The Court may pass any other order which it thinks just in the changed circumstances in respect of the instalments in which the decree shall be paid. The applicant will get the costs of this application from the opposite party.


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