Skip to content


Raman Chettiar Vs. Perumal Udayar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad397; (1941)1MLJ256
AppellantRaman Chettiar
RespondentPerumal Udayar
Excerpt:
- .....the appropriations towards principal as having been made, not towards the actual principal of the suit note but towards the notional principal as calculated according to the explanation to section 8. this is an error. the parties actually intended to appropriate these payments towards the real principal of the suit note which comprised both principal and interest of the earlier notes. the debtor cannot prove that there was an appropriation to the principal only of the earlier notes or that any interest was left outstanding on those notes to be cancelled as on 1st october, 1937. the petitioner is therefore entitled to a decree for rs; 100 with interest at 61/4 per cent. from 1st october, 1937 up to the date of the decree and subsequent interest at 6 per cent. and costs and interest.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. The respondent on 26th June, 1932 executed a promissory note for Rs. 463 in renewal of two earlier notes, the principal of which totalled Rs. 350. On 26th June, 1934 Rs. 111-8-0 was paid for interest and Rs. 323 was paid for principal, leaving a balance of Rs. 140 due. On 15th December 1934, Rs. 8 was paid for interest and Rs. 40 for principal having a balance of Rs. 100. The suit was filed in December, 1937 for Rs. 100 and subsequent interest and a decree was given on 4th March, 1938. In scaling down this decree under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938, the lower Court has treated the appropriations towards principal as having been made, not towards the actual principal of the suit note but towards the notional principal as calculated according to the explanation to Section 8. This is an error. The parties actually intended to appropriate these payments towards the real principal of the suit note which comprised both principal and interest of the earlier notes. The debtor cannot prove that there was an appropriation to the principal only of the earlier notes or that any interest was left outstanding on those notes to be cancelled as on 1st October, 1937. The petitioner is therefore entitled to a decree for Rs; 100 with interest at 61/4 per cent. from 1st October, 1937 up to the date of the decree and subsequent interest at 6 per cent. and costs and interest thereon at 5 per cent. from the date of the decree to 22nd March, 1938 and thereafter at 6 per cent. Petitioner will be entitled to his costs in revision.


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