LAXMINARAYAN Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 25.1.1990 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Sehore at Nasrullaganj in Civil Suit No. 150 -B/87 decreeing the suit.

(2.) THE appellant No. 1 secured a loan of Rs. 6,000/ - from the respondent/Bank on 11.5.1978 for purchase of bullocks and buffaloes with interest @12.5% per annum with quarterly rest and also executed a mortgage deed. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as a guarantor and executed letter of guarantee. On default of payment of loan amount the respondent/Bank filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs. 30,168.16 and interest pendente lite and future. The trial Court decreed the suit with interest @12% per annum. Shri S.C. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the loan was admittedly advanced to the appellant No. 1 was for agricultural purposes. Therefore, interest pendente lite and future should have been awarded @ 6% under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not on the aggregate of principal and interest accrued on the date of institution of the suit.

(3.) THE contention of Smt. Ruprah is not well founded. There is distinction between agricultural loan and commercial loan. The contractual rate of interest is no -doubt a rule in respect of the commercial transactions but not in respect of agricultural loan. It is settled by a catena of decisions that award of pendente lite and future interest exceeding 6% per annum on agricultural loan, is not proper. A Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Dalpat Gourishankar Upadhyay (AIR 1992 Bombay 482) has also held that pendente lite and future interest can be awarded only on the principal sum advanced to the debtor and not on the aggregate of the principal and interest accrued till the date of institution of the suit.