GOVINDAN NAIR (PULIKOTE PUTHAN VEETTIL KARNAVAN AND MANAGER) ANDEIGHTEEN ORS Vs. CHERAL ALIAS KRISHNA PANDUVAL PAENGOTPURATH TARWAD KARNAVAN AND MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In our opinion the Subordinate Judge s findings of fact as to the plaintiff s right to redeem cannot be said not to be based on evidence and must be accepted.

(2.) The appellant s vakil argues relying on Narayan v. Nagappa that the award of interest on a debt payable in kind is not authorised by Act XXXII of 1839. With great respect to the opinion of the learned Judges who were parties to the decision above quoted, we are unable to agree with their view.

(3.) We fail to see why a debt which is specifically expressed in measures of grain and payable at a specified time should not be regarded as a debt certain (assuming the latter adjective in Section 1 of the Act to qualify the word "debt" as well as "sum,") merely because the commutation rate at the time of payment or suit may have to be subsequently determined. We do not find anything, in the other case quoted by the appellant s vakil, Juggomohun Ghose v. Manickchand (1859) 7 M.I.A., 263 to conflict with this view. In our opinion the award of interest on the porappad in the present case was justified.