JUGGANNATH HARILAL Vs. TULRA KERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree dismissing his suit with costs on the ground that it is an interpleader suit, and so not maintainable.

(2.) In my opinion the learned Judge has been misled by the terms in which the suit evidently was describel before him, for to treat it as on y a suit of interpleader is to disregard paras (d) (e) and (g) of the prayor to the plaint. Those paras contain in substance a claim for redemption, and that in the circumstances is the appropriate remedy (cf. Vyvyan V/s. Vyvyan (1861) 4 De G. F.& J. 183). The dismissal of this suit might possibly result in the loss to the plaintiff of his right to reJeem and that no one could have intended.

(3.) The decree of the first Court must therefore be set aside. It is now conceded that the first four defendants have no such right as was claimed by them, and it is agreed that the principal and interest payable to the filth defendant up to the institution of the suit is iis. 2400-3-0 on the first mortgage and Rs. 10,000) on the second mortgage with interest at 6 per cent, on Rs. 1250 from the 20 February 1907. The only dispute is as to when interest should cease to run. I think in the special circumstances of this case that it did not cease on payment of the amount into Court, but on the other hand I hold it should not run beyond the 7 of October 1907, the date of the decree under appeal, as it was the 5 defendant who raised the issue that this suit was not maintainable, and thus delayed payment of the mortgage money.