GANGADHAR RAO MADHORAO CHITNAVIS Vs. PARSHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am only concerned with the question of allowance or disallowance of interest in the present case. 1 he mortgage-deed in suit for Rs. 3,500 was executed on 30th November 1911. The consideration was wanted for the following purposes: The mortgagors had to pay a decree for Rs. 3,014 odd outstanding favour of another creditor; to the mortgagee also a decree for Rs. 333 odd was due, and the small balance of consideration was apparently taken in cash. The first instalment was to be paid on a fixed date about 13 months later and thereafter the remaining six instalments were to be paid year by year at the same tune. With each instalment the interest then due at 1 per cent, per mensem was also to be paid. If each of the said instalments and interest were not paid, an enhanced rate of Re. 1-4-0 compound interest was to be chargeable The mortgage-bond in suit also contained the following two clauses: (a) If owing to our not having paid the kist of Government demand, you are required to pay that amount, this (sic) may be treated as forclosed before the stipulated period, and you may take possession. (b)If two of the instalments agreed by us by us for satisfaction of the said amount are defaulted by us, we will pay the entire amount together with interest in a lump.

(2.) SUCH are the essential terms of the mortgage-deed, p. 1.

(3.) IN other words, within less than six years of the date of execution of the mortgage, an amount equivalent to practically the whole principal, except Rs. 50, had been paid In spite of this, the present suit was brought for an amount of Rs. 5,784-4-0 on the basis of compound interest at 1 per cent, per mensem being claimed instead of the enhanced rate of Re. 1-4-0 per cent per mensem.