KESARLAL GIRDHARLAL DESAI Vs. JAGUBHAI HIRALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after discussing facts, referred to the contention that as a matter of law, interest could not be paid and proceeded as follows:-]

(2.) Mr. Rao cited to us several decisions of the Privy Council based on the law or the practice which was in force prior to the present practice and to the practice which regulated the decisions of the Court at the time when these proceedings were originally heard. I may note in passing that in one judgment their Lordships followed a particular rule, not because they themselves were in favour of it but because it represented practically the unanimous decisions of all the High Courts in India, and therefore in face of that unanimous opinion they were not prepared to set it aside, and declare that those decisions were all wrong. But in fact by alteration in the rules those decisions have been rendered obsolete.

(3.) Now we have not here a suit for possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits as in Order 20, Rule 12. In that class of suits it is quite easy for a plaintiff to ask at the trial for interest when he gets his decree for possession. If he does not then ask for mesne profits, one can quite understand that he may be debarred thereafter from getting them. But the suit before us is governed partly by Order 20, Rule 18, which provides for making preliminary decrees for the partition of property, and for giving such further directions as may be required. We are now on what I may call further consideration, and I think we may give such further directions as are necessary to work out the accounts and adjust the rights of the parties betweeen themselves. What then about interest ?