BONDA APPARAO Vs. BWADASA DEVALAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The potential question that is posed in these Revision-Petitions is:

(2.) Before adjudicating, the facts giving rise to the revision-petition may briefly be noticed: The revisionists who are the plaintiffs, filed a petition under sections 151 and 152 C.P.C. to amend the decree. The suit originally filed did not contain a provision praying for the interest on the principal under the suit pronote for the reason that the debtor put the plaintiffs in possession of his lands with an understanding that they should enjoy the usufruct from the said land in lieu of the interest under the said suit pronote. Though the defendants contended that the lands were given possession not only toward the discharge of interest, but towards the discharge of principal and interest, the Court decreed the suit with costs alone and not with interest. However, while drafting the decree subsequent interest at the rate of 51/2 % per annum from the date of suit was accorded. This was challenged by the plaintiffs and sought the amendment of the decree for deleting the subsequent interest from the decree as no such relief was given in the judgment and therefore, the decree was not in accord with the judgment. On this the lower court held that though the finding of the trial court was that the land of the debtor was delivered to the plaintiffs towards the interest under the promissory note on the understanding that the usufruct of the land should be credited towards interest, that finding was limited as far as the interest due on the suit promissory note till the date of the filing of the suit, and though there was no specific finding with regard to subsequent interest, the plaintiff cannot claim possession over the land of the debtors on the strength of pronote. After passing of the decree, whether the lands were in their possession or not the plaintiffs are entitled for subsequent interest. If the plaintiffs were still continued to be in possession at the time of execution of the decree they were at liberty to claim interest or not stating that they are enjoying the lands in lieu of the interest. But, however, the decree was to be clear with regard to subsequent interest because in para 3 (b) of the plaint, interest was claimed as under 5 "As the defendants are not agriculturists the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the interest at the contract rate". The lower court further held:

(3.) Because of the importance of the question involved, I sought the amicus services of the learned counsel Sri Challa Seetaramayya and I may record that his assistance has been immense. His arguments were not only full of force, but fair as well.