PANA ANA RANA ARUNACHALLAM PILLAI Vs. GOVINDASWAMI NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for money and raises two points as to interest. The amount sued for consisted partly of the price of cloth sold by the plaintiff, a trader, to the defendant, who is also a trader in cloth and partly of an amount of Rs. 500 advanced to the defendant on a pledge of a kasimalai. The defence as to interest on the price of the cloth was that there was no contract for interest either express or to be implied from the usage of trade and as to interest on the loan on the pledge that the defendant had tendered the amount borrowed (Rs. 500) with interest at Re. 1-2-0 per cent. per mensem on 20 September, 1923, i.e., about 25 days before the suit, that the plaintiff had improperly refused to accept the amount and return the pledged jewel and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to further interest from the date of tender or to costs of suit on that head of the claim.

(2.) As to interest on the price of cloth it has been found by both the Lower Courts that according to the usage of trade interest was payable. There is considerable evidence to support this finding including the defendant's own admission that he has charged interest against other traders on similar transactions and in view of this finding which is one of fact, the appellant's objection is not sustainable.

(3.) As to interest on the pledge the question is whether on the findings of both Courts that the defendant did tender the money on 20 September, 1923 and that the plaintiff improperly refused to accept the tender on the allegation that the pledge covered the price of the cloth also, subsequent interest on that amount of Rs. 500 was allowable. The District Munsif disallowed subsequent interest and proportionate costs. But the learned Subordinate Judge held that as defendant had not deposited the money in Court when sued for it, the tender prior to suit though improperly refused was ineffective to stop running of interest. He awarded plaintiff interest at the contract rate up to the date of decree and also the costs disallowed by the first Court. This is the question which was strenuously argued before us for the appellant. Before going into the question it may be pointed out that in this case the tender was made on 20 September, 1923, and the suit was brought on 15 October, 1923. By Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code the award of interest as well as the rate at which it is to be awarded from the date of suit to date of decree is in the discretion of the Court though where the contract rate is not inequitable that rate will be adopted (Sophia Or.de V/s. Alexandat Stiinner (1880) L.R. 7 I.A. 196 : I.L.R. 3 A. 91 at 106, 107 (P.C.)). Therefore, the only interest to which the appellant's objection, if successful, can apply is that for the period of 25 days between the above two dates which amounts to Rs. 4-11-0.