MANUJENDRA DUTT CHOUDHURY Vs. BESWANATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the order of remand passed by this Court on the 12th March (sic), and since the order passed by the learned District Judge on the 6th October 1917, there have been published decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Aziz Khan v. Duni Chand 48 Ind. Cas. 983 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 101 P.R. 1918) 166 P.W.R. 1918 (P.C.) and in the case of Balla Mal v. Ahad Shah 48 Ind. Cas. 1 : 23 C.W.N. 233 : 35 M.L.J. 614 : 16 A.L.J. 906 : 124 P.E. 1918 : 25 M.L.T. 55 : 180 P.W.R. 1918 : 29 C.L.J. 165 : 1 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 25 : 21 Bom. L.E. 558 (P.C.). In view of these rulings I think the question raised in this appeal must be taken as settled. The Courts below held that the defendants have been unable to prove fraud or undue influence, and, in my judgment, it follows that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the rates stipulated in the lease; that is, at the rate of Rs. 25 per cent. per mensem, Interest will be calculated at that rate up to the date of the institution of the suit and interest will run again at 6 percent, from the date on which the first Court passed its decree. We make no order as to costs. Greaves, J.

(2.) I agree.