GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE Vs. HARI RAJ AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the decree passed in OS. No. 16 of 1967 on the file of the Civil Judge at Mercara, by the State of Mysore, the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,996-69 from the defendant on the following grounds : Under an agreement entered into by the plaintiff with the owners of the land described in the plaint schedule, one D. H. Abdul Rahaman Saheb purchased the standing timber thereon. After the purchase, an enumeration of the trees on the land was done by the Government and it was found that there were 943 trees. The land in question being an unredeemed one, it was necessary to pay seignorage in respect of the standing timber before it was cut and removed. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the aforesaid Abdul Rahaman Saheb to purchase the said trees from him. After they purchased the same, they deposited a sum of" Rs. 65,198-85 towards seignorage and commenced to cut and remove the timber. At that stage it was noticed that having regard to the number of trees which could be cut and removed, the amount of seignorage collected by the Forest Department was excessive. It appears the officials of the Foreet Department who had enumerated the number of trees, had included in the list prepared by them certain trees which could not be cut and removed also. That on 13-1-1964, "the Forest Ranger in charge of the area in which the schedule land was situated, called upon the plaintiffs not to cut such of those trees whose girth was below 7 ft notwithstanding the fart that they had also been included in the list originally prepared by the Department on the basis of which seignorage had been collected. The plaintiffs implicitly obeyed the instructions issued by the Forest Ranger and requested the Forest Dept. to refund the amount of seignorage which had been paid in excess by them. Because the plaintiffs were not able to realise the amount claimed by them in spite of repeated petitions addressed to the Government and a notice issued under S.80 CPC, the plaintiffs instituted the above suit on 13-11-1967. They claimed in the course of their plaint that they were entitled to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 37.611-64 being the excess seignorage paid by them; a sum of Rs.7334-25 by way of interest at six per cent per annum from 30-7-1964 till date of suit, and Rs.50-30 towards notice charges. In all they claimed that a decree should be passed against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 44,996-69.

(2.) The defendant raised various pleas in the course of the written statement and contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the decree as prayed for. The Court below, however proceeded to pass a decree against the defendant for Rs.44,996-69 with interest at six per cent per annum on Rs.37,611-64 from 13-11-1967 i.e. the date of suit till the date of payment. The sum of Rs.44,996-69 referred to above included interest at sis per cent on the sum of Rs. 37,611-64 from 30-7-1964 till the date of the suit. Aggrieved, by the decree parsed by the Court below, the defendant (State of Mysore), has filed this appeal. The appeal is confined only to that part of the decree of the Court below by which interest was awarded from 30-7-1964 till date of suit.

(3.) Sri N. Basavaraju, the learned Counsel for the defendant, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Watkins Mayor & Co. AIR. 1966 9C. 275. contended that the Court below was wrong in awarding interest in respect of the period prior to the date of suit in the circumstances of this case. Admittedly there was no agreement between the parties to pay interest in respect of any excess seignorage recovered by the Government. The amount in question until it was ascertained and decreed by the Court below, was an unascertained sum. The case, according to Sri Basavaraju, does not fall under any one of those cases in which interest in respect of the period prior to the suit, could be awarded. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as follows :