VYSARAJU BADREENARAYANA MOORTY RAJU Vs. EPARI VENUGOPALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M .A. 49/75 has been filed by the decree holder in the execution Proceeding No. 22 of 1970. M.A. 69/75 has been filed by the judgment debtor in the said execution proceeding. The two appeals were taken up together for hearing and this following judgment will govern both the appeals.

(2.) IT is urged by Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Appellant in M.A. 69/75, that as more than double the principal amount has admittedly been paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder on the said loan the Court is precluded from passing any order for the realisation of and the decree holder is prohibited from realising any further amount on the said loan in view of the new Sections 7 -C and 7 -D in Chapter II -A of the Money Lenders Act. Section 7 -C and 7 -D are quoted below:

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the decree holder that the amount decreed by a Court in a suit of this nature cannot be regarded as the principal or interest amount on a loan, but is the decretal amount directed by the Court to be paid by the judgment debtor, and so the judgment debtor is bound to pay the said decretal dues strictly in accordance with the decree. In support of the above submissions the Respondent's counsel cited the decision reported in Aliana Annapurnamma v. Vaddadi Ledda Appayamma and Ors. : : A.I.R. 1941 Cal. 681, wherein it has been observed that interest due on the decreetal amount has no connection with the original contract and that the interest payable on the decretal amount must be regarded as a liability included in the decree. No doubt the above view has been taken on the observations of the Privy Council in, 63 I.A. 114, which is as follows:.