Skip to content


Parshotam Das and anr. Vs. B. Biththal Das and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All51; 54Ind.Cas.431
AppellantParshotam Das and anr.
RespondentB. Biththal Das and anr.
Excerpt:
interest act (xxxii of 1839), section 1 - sale of goods--vendor, whether entitled to interest on price of goods--agreement to pay interest, absence of--notice to claim interest, failure to give, effect of. - - he has referred to the provisions of the interest act (xxxii of 1839), and says the plaintiffs have failed to bring their case within the purview of that act......the court of first instance. he is a son in-law of one of the defendants, and in his cross-examination stated as follows: 'i purchased tar from the plaintiffs and paid interest at the rate of ten annas per cent.' it would be difficult, in my opinion, to found on this statement an agreement to the effect that the present transaction is one in which interest is payable according to law, i think the decision of the court below is correct. the appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Judgment:

Lindsay, J.

1. The only question to be discussed in this appeal relates to interest. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover the price of goods supplied to the defendants. The claim as Laid included a claim for interest at Rs. 1 per cent, per mensem. One of the pleas raised in defence was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim interest as there had been no agreement for payment of the same. The Court of first instance, relying on the statement of one of the defence witnesses, thought that the plaintiffs were entitled to interest at the rate of 0 8.0 per cent. per mensem. In appeal the learned District Judge has refused the claim for interest. He has referred to the provisions of the Interest Act (XXXII of 1839), and says the plaintiffs have failed to bring their case within the purview of that Act. After hearing the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants I think the Judge's view must be maintained. It is not pleaded here that there was any written instrument containing an agreement to pay interest, nor again was it claimed by the plaintiffs that they had given any notice to the defendants of their intention of claiming interest in case the debt was not discharged by a particular time. It is true as argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants, that there is a proviso to this enactment of 1839 whereby notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, interest is to be payable in all cases in which it is now payable by law, the word now referring, of course, to the year 1839. The only piece of evidence to which I have been referred for the purpose of showing that this case falls within the proviso is the statement of one Kishen Das, the witness whose evidence was relied upon by the Court of first instance. He is a son in-law of one of the defendants, and in his cross-examination stated as follows: 'I purchased tar from the plaintiffs and paid interest at the rate of ten annas per cent.' It would be difficult, in my opinion, to found on this statement an agreement to the effect that the present transaction is one in which interest is payable according to law, I think the decision of the Court below is correct. The appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs to the respondents.


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