(GUDIMALLA) NARASIMHAM Vs. (PAIDIMARRI) VENKATA SUBBAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit upon a mortgage (Ex. A) in which the plaintiff was awarded a decree by the District Munsif for about Rs. 356 and in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge for Rs. 2,982 odd. The discrepancy between the figures is mainly due to the difference in the findings of two Courts as to the plaintiff's right to compound interest. The District Munsif took a view which was adverse to the plaintiff on the question of compound interest, while the learned Subordinate Judge took a view in his favour. In second appeal by the defendants three points are raised: first, that the decree of the Subordinate Judge awarding compound interest to the plaintiff is wrong; second, that the decree of the Subordinate Judge awarding post diem interest to the plaintiff is wrong; and thirdly that the defendants should have been awarded compensation for alleged breaches of the mortgage contract by the plaintiff. The second and third points may be briefly dealt with as there is no substance in them. The argument is that the mortgage document (Ex. A) does not contain any clear stipulation for post diem interest and therefore it should not have been awarded. This argument is not correct. It has been held that even where there is no express stipulation in a mortgage document for post diem interest, such interest may be awarded either under a contract to be implied or as compensation and the usual practice is to award such interest at the contract rate. I think no fault can be found with this part of the decree.

(2.) So also as to the claim for compensation by the defendants. The alleged breach by the plaintiff is that he failed to pay off two creditors to whom he undertook to pay Rs. 900 out of the mortgage money. It is admitted that the plaintiff did not make the payment and that the defendants themselves paid off those debts. But all this took place prior to 1913. The suit was brought in 1925. The Subordinate Judge has held that whatever claim the defendants may have had to compensation for the breach by the plaintiff, which would be the difference between the interest payable to the plaintiff and the interest subsequent to the mortgage actually paid to the creditors by the defendants, it is barred by limitation. It was urged that this view of the question of limitation was wrong. But it is immaterial to decide that point; because even if it is competent for the defendants to raise that question, there are no materials on record on which any relief can be given. From the first the defendants nowhere stated what was the amount of compensation due to them. I am not inclined to go into the question of limitation for the purpose of remanding the case in case it was found in favour of the appellant.

(3.) The only substantial point in the appeal is that relating to compound interest. On this the District Munsif held that the mortgage document did not provide for it, while the learned Subordinate Judge held that it did. Ex. A is a Telugu document, very brief and extremely unconventional. It was probably prepared by a village document writer. But as it is it has to be interpreted on its own words. According to the learned Subordinate Judge the provision relating to interest is as follows: The total sum due to you is Rs. 2,000. On this the interest is Rs. 0-14-3 per Rs. 100 per mensem. At this rate, with Salu-sari Vaddi (literally for every year-interest) we shall pay in four equal instalments of Rs. 600, each payable on 30 March of each year.