COLLECTOR OF ETAH Vs. KISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference to a Full Bench by the learned Judges of a Division Bench, the points for decision being as follows: (1) Whether an agreement can be proved (by oral evidence) by the defendant to show that on payment of a sum of money less than what would be due on calculating the correct amount of principal and interest at the stipulated rate entered in the mortgage deed, the debt would be discharged. (2) Whether such evidence would be admissible to prove (and accord) satisfaction of the debt.

(2.) (N.B. In question No. 1 the words in brackets were agreed to be added during the hearing of the case by the Full Bench, and in question No. 2 it was agreed that the words within brackets should be taken out).

(3.) The facts which are necessary to be considered in order to appreciate the reference are given in the order of reference and are briefly these: One Rao Maharaj Singh, whose estate is now under the management of the Court of Wardsexecuted a mortgage deed on 21 March 1918 for a sum of Rs. 85,000 in favour of the plaintiffs late father Lala Kishen Lal, and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum compoundable every year. The Collector of Etah, as the manager of the Court of Wards of the estate of the mortgagor is the defendant. The plaintiffs case is that when the Court of Wards took over the management of the estate of the mortgagor, the Collector, on behalf of the Court of Wards reduced the rate of interest payable by the mortgagor to 6 per cent per annum, but as the debt due to the plaintiff was not paid off within two years the plaintiffs are entitled to the stipulated rate of interest. The Court of Wards paid certain amounts of money and the balance is still due. The plaintiffs accordingly claimed recovery of Rs. 27,379-4-0.