GOPALASAMI BAGHAVATHAR Vs. NATARAJA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE document provides for payment of interest on 16 July, 1916, 16 July 1917 and 16 July 1918, and for payment of interest on interest in default of payment of interest on those dates. This part of the document is not now in question. It does not provide generally for annual payment of interest at a particular date or for further interest on interest in default of payment of interest. On general principles it is true that the document carries interest even after 16 July 1918, but we cannot spell out a provision to pay interest on a specified date after 16 July 1918 or to pay interest on interest in default. This will be adding to the bond clauses not in it.

(2.) THE cases in Jagmohan Das V/s. Jugal Kishore 1932 P.C. 99 and Marimuthu Pillai v. Gopalakrishna Iyer 1929 Mad. 774, are distinguishable as they contain general clauses providing for payment of interest. As to the case Ramanathan Chetty V/s. Nur Muhammad (1901) 11 M.L.J. 183, we are inclined to agree with Davies, J s. judgment. On a matter of construction each case must depend on the language for the interest. THE appeal is dismissed with costs.