ABDUL HUSSAIN MOHASINALI BOHRI Vs. FAZALBHAI TAHERALLI BOHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal from a decree disallowing him interest on the amount claimed by him from the defendants on foot of a promissory note.

(2.) IT is common ground that the firm 'Taharali Haji Hibtullabhai' owed some money to the plaintiff's father Mohasinali. After the death of the plaintiff's father his estate was divided amongst his heirs. At that time the debt due from the firm to Mohasinali was allotted to the plaintiff. On June 27, 1935, Seth Taharali as a partner and agent of the firm and on behalf thereof executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 9,000 in respect of the money owed by the firm to Mohasinali. The promissory note did not provide for any interest. On June 27, 1938, Seth Taharali executed another promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and on behalf of the firm for Rs. 10,500 with interest at -/8/ - per cent, per month. This sum of Rs. 10,500 was made up of Rs. 9,000 due on the earlier promissory note and of Rs. 1,500 as interest thereon. Only a sum of Rs. 500 was repaid by the firm. After deducting that amount from the principal amount and adding interest on that sum the plaintiff claimed in the suit Rs. 16,200 from the defendants. Defendant No. 1 is Seth Taharali's son Seth. Fazalbhai while the remaining defendants are the sons of Haji Habtullabhai who died before the institution of the suit.

(3.) THERE is no doubt that the Court below was in error in holding that plaintiff was not entitled to any interest at all on the promissory note dated June 27, 1935, merely because that promissory note did not make any specific mention about interest. It has ignored the provisions of Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which require that in a case like this interest shall be calculated at the rate of six per cent. per annum.