LAL BATCHA SAHIB Vs. ARCOT NARAINASWAMI MUDALIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question raised in this appeal is as to the interest payable by the defendant to the representatives of the late Pinavelu on money due by the defendant to Pinavelu on the death of the latter.

(2.) Mr. Sundara Ayyar on behalf of the defendant contended that the effect of exhibit IV, a letter dated 4 November 1901, from the defendant to Pinavelu's brother was to stop interest running as against the defendant from the date of that letter. He contended, in the alternative, that at any rate exhibit VII, a letter dated 7 January 1902 from the defendant to Pinavelu a widow relieved the defendant from any obligation to pay interest as from the date of that letter.

(3.) It is not necessary to consider whether the taking out of a succession certificate was necessary for the recovery of the debt. For the purposes of my judgment, I assume that the defendant was entitled to decline to pay until a succession certificate had been taken out, though as a matter of fact no succession certificate was ever taken out and a suit was ultimately brought and a decree obtained by the guardians of Pinavelu's adopted son.