(1.) THE plaintiff who is the malguzar of Saugor, sued the defendant who is the holder of a malik makbuza plot therein for the recovery of a certain sum on account of arrears of revenue and interest thereon. The dispute centred on the appropriation of certain payments made by the defendant, as to whether they were made towards the interest or towards the amount of land revenue due for the years in which they were paid, and the suit had to be remanded by the lower appellate Court to the trial Court on that account. On the retrial a certain sum was found due on arrears of interest. There is no dispute as to the amounts actually paid. In appeal it was complained that the lower Court was wrong in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to charge interest on the arrears of Sambat years 1982 and 1983 and that the lower Court should have held that the plaintiff was not so entitled and that in respect of two items of Rs. 4-12-9 and Rs. 13-12-0 interest had been charged twice on certain sums and that the appellant's account admitting Rupees 30-8-0 should have been accepted and the rest of the claim, namely Rs. 37-1-4 should have been dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal based on these grounds and in the course of the argument the appellant's contention in respect of the item Rupees 4-12-9 was abandoned and only that of Rs. 13-12-0 contested. The lower appellate Court found that the account in respect of both those items was correct; these were in reference to the interest on arrears due for the years sambat 1977, 1978 and 1979. It has also held that the plaintiff was entitled to charge interest on the arrears for the sambat years 1982 and 1983. In second appeal it is now contended that as the arrears were arrears of land revenue and not arrears of rent the plaintiff was entirely debarred from claiming interest in respect of arrears at all. Other grounds were taken but these have been abandoned and this is the only point in issue. The learned Counsel for the appellants claims that no interest is chargeable on arrears of land revenue, and has referred me to Section 119, Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1888. That section runs : Interest shall not be charged on an arrear of revenue unless the Chief Commissioner, by general or special order so directs; Provided that the Court may award interest at such rate as it thinks fit on sums payable under a sub-settlement.
(2.) THAT section has not been reproduced in the Land Revenue Act of 1917. The contention now set up is entirely new and indeed the defendant's case originally was that, in variation of the ordinary rule as to interest on arrears, there was a specific agreement between the parties that no interest was to be charged if the amount due was not paid in time. The plaintiff contended that there was no such agreement and issues were framed on the point : Was there an agreement between the parties that the plaintiff shall accept the revenue from the defendant without any interest. and again : If there was no such agreement, is plaintiff entitled to interest as the land revenue was not paid at the proper time ? Has defendant been paying such interest ? What would be the proper rate of interest ?