RAMAN Vs. RAMASASTRI POTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point arising for decision in this Second Appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay interest on the michavaram decreed. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the mortgage deed Ext. 1 does not stipulate for payment of interest on such arrears. It is seen from Ext. 1 that michavaram was payable on two specified dates in the year. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff was entitled to get interest at 20% per annum on the michavaram which was payable in paddy according to custom or usage. This was not denied in the written statement. On the other hand, the defendant disclaimed liability to pay interest, on the ground that the failure to pay the same was due to the pendency of another litigation to which the plaintiff's predecessors and defendants were parties. The decision of the Privy Council in Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji and others ( AIR 1938 PC 67 ) was cited in support of the proposition that interest was not awardable as damages. In the same decision it was held that interest for the period prior to the date of the suit may be awarded if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at a fixed rate or if it is payable by usage. The custom or usage pleaded by the plaintiff was not denied. The courts in Travancore have from every early times recognised the right of landlord or mortgagor to get interest on arrears of rent or michavaram. Such right has been upheld in Varkki Mathan v. Iravi Govindan (11 TLR 215) and Muhammathu Pillai v. Muhammathu Kannu (26 TLR 63) (Full Bench). Therefore the question whether interest awardable as damages does not arise in this case. The Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.