Skip to content


Majety Satyanarayanamurthy Vs. Koduri Kanakaraju - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad673
AppellantMajety Satyanarayanamurthy
RespondentKoduri Kanakaraju
Excerpt:
- .....far more than the principal sum outstanding as on 1st october 1932. applying the general rule that payments towards principal will be deemed to have been appropriated first to the earliest advance it seems to me that the whole of the sums advanced before 1st october 1932 must be deemed to have been discharged before the act came into force. there can be no question i therefore of scaling down this debt on the basis of renewals and taking it back to a debt anterior to list october 1932. it follows therefore that we are concerned only with the debt starting on 11th april 1937 to be sealed down under section 9 of the act. this debt must be regarded as one carrying interest at five per cent and the payments made appropriated to principal and interest. apparently, there were no specific.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Wadsworth, J.

1. The present petitioner filed a small cause suit for a sum of Rs. 232-11-0 being the balance due under a promissory note dated 11th April 1937 for Rs. 415-7-3 and subsequent dealings. The promissory note itself was a settlement in the account of dealings going back to 14th February 1932. The Court trying the suit in the first instance dealt with it on the basis that it related to transactions subsequent to 1st October 1932 and that the debt was one to be scaled down under Section 9 and it pronounced that the plaintiff was entitled to recover interest at five per cent, down to 22nd March 1938 and at 6 1/4 per cent, subsequent to that date without expressly stating with effect from what date the interest would begin to run. The decree based on this judgment assumes that interest runs from the date of the settlement of 11th April 1937 and the calculation is made accordingly. After the decree had been drafted the defendant filed an application for the amendment of the decree under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P.C., contending that interest should not be scaled down only with effect from the date of the settlement of 11th April 1937 but that it should be taken back right through the dealings to 14th February 1932. There were also minor contentions regarding costs and travelling expenses. The learned District Munsif instead of going into the question whether the decree was in accordance with the judgment, really proceeded to retry the whole case and by a process of calculation, which I find it very difficult to follow, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 90 and not Rs. 211-15-0 as embodied in the previous decree. The judgment so far as the figures are concerned is obscure and it is not very profitable to try and ascertain how this figure has been reached. The solution seems to me to be perfectly plain on the material which has been put before me.

2. The indebtedness started with dealings early in 1932 and by 1st October 1932 a sum of Rs. 327-15-6 had been advanced. Between 1st October 1932 and the commencement of the Act further advances amounting to Rs. 792-14-3 in all had been made. The fact that the principal amount due had by this time been reduced to a little more than the amount of principal outstanding on 1st October 1932 clearly indicates that the payments in reduction of principal must have amounted to far more than the principal sum outstanding as on 1st October 1932. Applying the general rule that payments towards principal will be deemed to have been appropriated first to the earliest advance it seems to me that the whole of the sums advanced before 1st October 1932 must be deemed to have been discharged before the Act came into force. There can be no question I therefore of scaling down this debt on the basis of renewals and taking it back to a debt anterior to list October 1932. It follows therefore that we are concerned only with the debt starting on 11th April 1937 to be sealed down under Section 9 of the Act. This debt must be regarded as one carrying interest at five per cent and the payments made appropriated to principal and interest. Apparently, there were no specific appropriations made by the creditor or debtor before the plaint was filed. The suit as filed by the plaintiff seems, so far as I can gather, to have been correctly framed in so far as it relates to the amount due for principal and interest, scaling down the debt under Section 9 with reference to payments made. There was a correction made in the lower Court to revised decree in respect of a deduction for travelling expenses disallowed. That this correction was rightly made is not disputed and the further correction made with reference to the costs in the lower Court is also admitted to be justified. In other respects the alteration of the decree as originally passed seems to have no justification. The petition is therefore allowed with costs and the order of the lower Court will be set aside except in so far as it recognises the defendant's rights to proportionate costs and corrects the deduction for travelling expenses to Rs. 12-1-0.


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