SURENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE Vs. JOGENDRA NATH ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond. The learned judge in the Court of Appeal below has given the plaintiff simple interest at the rate provided for in the bond. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal to this Court asking for compound interest which is provided in the event of default, and on his behalf reliance is placed upon the two recent decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council reported as Aziz Khan v. Duni Chand 48 Ind. Cas. 933 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 101 P.R. 1918 : 165 P.W.R. 1918 (P.C.) and Balla Mal v. Ahad Shah 48 Ind. Cas. 1 : 23 C.W.N. 233 : 35 M.L.J. 614 : 16 A.L.J. 905 : 124 P.R. 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.R. 558 (P.C.) respectively. The learned Judge quotes those decisions and he says: "These oases, however, were decisions with reference to the application of Section 16 of the Contract Act, and do not deal with the law relating to cases where Section 74 is applicable."

(2.) The learned Vakil who appears for the respondent has adopted the same argument.

(3.) This line of reasoning seems to ma very like an attempt to whittle away the effect of the decisions to which the learned Judge refers.