GOVIND Vs. MALKARJUNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this case is one of the meaning of the rule of damdupat by which the parties are bound. The suit rested on a mortgage for Rs. 5,000 executed on 25th September 1914. The only payment was one of Rs. 4,865 made on 16th October 1925. On 16th December of that year, that is two months later, the plaintiffs filed the present suit, in which they claimed a decree for Rs. 10,000, asserting that by that time more than Rs. 12,000 appeared due at the foot of the account.

(2.) IN the plaint it is stated that by the account the amount due to the plaintiffs on 16th October 1925 was Rs. 17,633 which the payment of Rs. 4,865 on that day reduced to Rs. 12,768. By adding interest to that the amount due on the date of the suit, strictly according to account, would be about Rs. 13,456, though it is stated to be slightly less. Anyhow it is more than Rs. 10,000 and the plaintiffs claimed a decree for that sum only.

(3.) THE texts on which the rule is based are cited in Dhondu v. Narayan 1 B.H.C. 47, decided by the Bombay High Court in 1863 and in the judgment of the same Court in Sukalal v. Bapu Sdhharam [1900] 24 Bom. 2 36 years later, and they seem to leave no doubt about the matter. The interpretation suggested for the appellants is not easy to understand; it seems to be that the amount of interest that may be recovered at any time shall not exceed the principal, but that any excess there may be according to the account shall still be recoverable, though not at that time. Such an interpretation, reduces the rule to a nullity, in addition to being directly contradictory of the words of the texts, which say that when1 the interest is equal to the principal, it "ceases" (Gautam) or "stops" (Katyayana).