LAWS(PVC)-1924-5-22

RAI RADHA KISHAN Vs. JAG SAHU

Decided On May 30, 1924
RAI RADHA KISHAN Appellant
V/S
JAG SAHU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present action was brought to enforce a mortgage on the family estate which had been executed by a pardanashin lady, now deceased, who had had a widow's right in the said estate The mortgage bore to be for Its. 775 with compound interest at 24 per cent. and half-yearly rests. The Subordinate Judge held that the mortgage was enforceable only as to Rs. 329. Necessity as to the remainder not having been proved, he decreed for Rs. 329 as principal and for interest at only 24 per cent simple. This brought out the interest at Rs. 1178.12.9. The High Court agreed as to the principal, but held that compound interest should be charged, which brought out the total sum at Rs. 18548.11.4.

(2.) The view of the learned Subordinate Judge is concisely ex-pressed in his finding on the 5 issue. He says:-- Issue No, 5.--The amount covered by both the handnotes (Exts. 1 and 2 (a)) curried interest at 2 per cent, per month. The bond in suit was executed only a month or so after the execution of these handnotes and there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the plaintiff to show that pressure for repayment of the amounts due on them was so great as to compel Bachu Kuar to agree to pay compound interest at 2 per cent. with six-monthly rests Compound interest at this rate seems to be very high and the extent of its exorbitancy can be well gauged by the fact that Rs. 775 has run to Rs. 14,500 from October, 1902, to November, 1915. To make the defendants liable for such exorbitant interest the plaintiffs were bound to prove that Bachu Kuar could not get money at a lower rate but this they have not done (6 C.L. J 462). I would, therefore, allow simple interest at 24 per cent, per year as stipulated for by the notes (Exts. 1 and 2).

(3.) The learned Judges of the High Court reversed because, in their opinion, there was no specific statement in the defendants pleading raising the question of the necessity for the rate of interest and that, therefore, the Subordinate Judge was wrong in going into the matter.