NUSSERWANJI COWASJI Vs. LAXMAN BHIKAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rule of damdupat does not (in ray opinion) divest rights that have accrued ; it merely limits accruing rights.

(2.) If therefore the interest claimed was not at its accrual barred by the rule of damdupat, but actually became a debt due to the plaintiff; the subsequent payment of the principal sum in respect of which it accrued would not cancel or avoid the debt of interest.

(3.) To hold otherwise would lead to the result that if A owed B Rs. 1000 for principal and Rs. 1000 for interest A by paying B Rs. 1000 and intimating that the payment was to be applied to the discharge of the principal, would deprive his creditor of his right to the Rs. 1000 due to him in respect of interest.