RAJAMMA Vs. K.S. DINAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2000 in S.C. No. 447/1993 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn,) Mandya have presented this Revision Petition.

(2.) The 1st respondent herein has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,594.00 together with costs of the suit and future interest from the petitioners. The husband of the first petitioner and father of the other petitioners borrowed a loan of Rs. 10,000.00 for his family necessities and executed a D.P. Note on 10.5.1985 and also consideration receipt on the same day. The interest is agreed at 1% p.m. The husband of the 1st petitioner Sri D.L. Shivaramu later on died leaving behind the present petitioners as legal heirs. Further, the case of the petitioners is that the respondent succeeded into the property of late husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the petitioners. Late D.L. Shivaramu did not repay the loan amount during his life time, therefore the 1st respondent was compelled to file the said suit for recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 10,000.00 and past interest of Rs. 5,444.00, notice charges of Rs. 150.00 totalling to Rs. 15.594.00. The Trial Court after considering the material on records, after evaluation of both oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent has made out a case for recovery of the said amount from the petitioners and decreed the suit declaring that the 1st respondent is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 15,554.00 together with the interest and the future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the realisation of the decretal amount from the petitioners jointly and severally. Assailing the correctness of the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the petitioners have presented this Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Trial Court was not justified in awarding the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation of the decretal amount. The interest awarded by the Trial Court is contrary to the contractual rate and it reveals from the record that agreed rate of interest is at 1% per month. Therefore, he confined his submission to the interest awarded on decretal amount by the Trial Court and contended that it is not justified and it is contrary to the material facts on record, nor it is the case of the 1st respondent that she is entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has got some substance and there is a considerable force in his submission.