LACHMI LAL Vs. BABU NARAIN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal against a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge of Banaras in a suit for recovery of money due on two sarkhats. On 29th December 1931, the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000/-from the plaintiffs on the basis of a sarkhat, carrying interest at 10 annas per cent. per mensem. The interest was regularly paid and Rs. 3,900/- was paid towards the principal, with the result that on 25th September 1940, the amount that had remained due under this sarkhat was only Rs. 2,100/-. On 1st July 1932 a second sarkhat had been executed for Rs. 4,000/-and the amount was payable with interest at 10 annas per cent. per mensem. Interest on this sarkhat was also paid regularly on the due dates, but nothing was paid towards the principal and on 1st October 1940, Rs. 4,000/- had remained due to the creditors. On 26th September 1940, and 1st October 1940, fresh sarkhats were executed by the defendants for Rs. 2,100/- and Rs. 4,000/- the amounts due under the previous sarkhats. After these renewals, a sum of Rs. 78-12-0 was paid towards the sarkhat for Rs. 2,100/- and a sum of Rs. 150/- towards the sarkhat for Rs. 4,000/-. The claim was, therefore, for Rs. 2,122-12-0 principal and interest due under one sarkhat and Rs. 4,038-6-0 principal and interest due under the other sarkhat, the total claim being for Rs. 6.161-2-0. The two sarkhats were executed for Firm Damodar Lal, Manohar Lal by Madho Lal as proprietor of the firm. The joint family apparently consisted of Madbo Lal and his son Lakehmi Lal; Lakshmi Lal was impleaded as a defendant to the action, but he was exempted on 7th December 1942. The parties to the suit in the trial Court were, therefore, Firm Damodar Lal Manohar Lal and Babn Madho Lal. Madho Lal is dead, and this appeal was filed by Lakshmi Lal, son of Madho Lal as the legal representative of his father and Firm Damodar Lal Manohar Lal through Madho Lal was impleaded as pro forma defendant, but after the death of Madho Lal the Firm was transposed from the array of respondents to the array of appellants.

(2.) Firm Damodar Lal Manohar Lal did not enter appearance. Modho Lal contested the suit and claimed that he was an agriculturist and the plaintiffs were creditors, and as no accounts were maintained and copies of accounts not sent as required under the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, the plaintiffs were not entitled to get any interest. The trial Court held in defendants' favour that the plaintiffs were creditors and Madho Lal was an agriculturist, and the plaintiffs, not having maintained proper accounts as required by the Agriculturists' Relief Act nor having sent copies of accounts to the debtors, they were not entitled to claim interest or costs. The result was that the suit was decreed for the principal sum due, that is Rs. 6,100/- with future interest at 3 per cent. per annum. It is not clear why the learned Judge disallowed pendente life interest, but because no party has made a point of it we need not consider this matter.

(3.) It has been urged by learned counsel for the defendants appellants that the renewal of the sarkhats on 25th September 1940, and 1st October 1940, must be taken to be fresh loans and these should have been evidenced not only by written documents as required by Section 39 but also copies of these sarkhats should have been given to the debtors. It is not alleged that any copies of these sarkhats were given to the debtors. The requirements of Section 39, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act were, therefore, not complied with. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the requirements of Section 39 of the Act not having been complied with under Sub-section (3) of Section 39, no interest should be deemed to have accrued on the loans and the payments of Rs. 78-12.0 and Rs. 150/- must, therefore, go towards the payment of the principal sums due. It is not contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents that, if the provisions of Section 39 are applicable and have not been complied with, the amounts paid cannot be taken into account towards the principal sums. The point is covered by a Single Judge decision of this Court in Chhaddami Lal v. Har Sarup, 1943 A. L. J. 374 : (A. I. R. (30) 1943 ALL. 305), and by an unreported decision in Abdul Rahman v. Chakhanlal, Civil Revn. No. 133 of 1946 dated 6th May 1949. Sub-clause (3) of Section 39 came up for interpretation before a Full Bench of this Court in Jamuna Prasad v. Raghunath Pd., 1943 A. L. J. 155 : (A. I. R. (30) 1943 ALL. 171 F. B.), and it was held that if the provisions of Sub-section (1) have not been complied with, then interest shall "not accrue at all on the document." In the present case, therefore, if no interest had accured due, the money paid remained in the hands of the creditors and they have to account for it.