Skip to content


Ram DeIn Singh and ors. Vs. Het NaraIn Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal871
AppellantRam DeIn Singh and ors.
RespondentHet NaraIn Singh
Excerpt:
hindu law - contract--interest exceeding principal--suits between hindus in mofusil--act xxviii of 1855, section 2. - .....appeal against the decision of the subordinate judge of shahabad in a suit upon a bond. the only question raised in the appeal is, whether the decree for interest from the date fixed in the bond for the repayment of the loan at the particular rate mentioned in the bond is correct or not. there is also another question raised,'viz., that the plaintiff's are not entitled to recover interest in excess of the principal. as regards the question of rate, the terms of the bond are quite plain. it says: i do declare and give out in writing that i shall, without any objection, repay the said amount, principal with interest at the rate of rs. 1-4 per cent per mensem, on the 30th bhadur 1277 fusli. if i fail to do so on that date as promised, then on the expiration of that date, i.e., from the.....
Judgment:

Mitter, J.

1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad in a suit upon a bond. The only question raised in the appeal is, whether the decree for interest from the date fixed in the bond for the repayment of the loan at the particular rate mentioned in the bond is correct or not. There is also another question raised,'viz., that the plaintiff's are not entitled to recover interest in excess of the principal. As regards the question of rate, the terms of the bond are quite plain. It says: I do declare and give out in writing that I shall, without any objection, repay the said amount, principal with interest at the rate of Rs. 1-4 per cent per mensem, on the 30th Bhadur 1277 Fusli. If I fail to do so on that date as promised, then on the expiration of that date, i.e., from the 1st Assin 1278 Fusil interest on the said amount of loan at the rate of Rs. 1-8 per cent per mensem, till the date of repayment, shall be due from me.' We are bound to decree the rates agreed upon under Section 2, Act XXVIII of 1855, and there is no ground upon which we can say that this stipulation was in the nature of a penalty. Then as regards the question raised before us, as to whether under the Hindu law the plaintiff's were entitled to recover interest in excess of the principal, we are of opinion that the aforesaid Section 2, Act XXVIII of 1855, is also conclusive upon this point. Our attention has been called to several decisions of the Original Side of this Court and of the Bombay High Court; they were based upon the provisions of the Charter of the late Supreme Court, by which it was provided that the Hindu law was to govern contracts between parties who were Hindus in suits before the Supreme Court. But in the mofussil there was a Regulation, viz., Regulation XV of 1793 distinctly providing rules under which interest was to be allowed, and Section 6 of that Regulation provided that in no case interest was to exceed the principal. That section was expressly repealed by Act XXVIII of 1855, and the only section enacted in lieu of Section 6 and other sections repealed was Section 2 of the Act, which says: 'In any suit in which interest is recoverable, the amount shall be adjudged or decreed by the Court at the rate (if any) agreed upon by the parties. That being so, it is quite clear that we are bound, under Section 2, Act XXVIII of 1855, to award the full interest that is due under the terms of the bond.

2. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs.


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