CANARA BANK Vs. BEAULINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the decree dated 12-2-1980 passed by the ii additional civil judge, Bangalore city in o.s. No. 675/1977.

(2.) at the outset, Sri vedanthalyengar, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants 3 to 6 and 8 to 11 raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the Provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code as the decree under the appeal is one passed on a compromise. It is also next contended that awarding of interest from the date of the decree till the date of realisation is in the discretion of the court; that there was no compromise in this regard by the parties. Hence the future interest awarded at 6 per cent per annum is in accordance with law and as such it is not liable to be interfered with.

(3.) the appeal in question is confinedto the awarding of future interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the decree. Therefore, the two points that arise for consideration in this appeal are.