KAMLA PRASAD RAM PANDEY Vs. HASAN ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant against a decree in favour of the plaintiff by the lower Appellate Court decreeing recovery of Rs. 875 principal on a promissory note and interest at 24 per cent per annum simple from the date of the promissory note, 15 January 1931, up to the date of the suit, 6 January 1934, and thereafter at 6 per cent per annum simple. The appellant alleges that the interest which should have been decreed should be only at; Rs. 2 per mensem as a lump sum, that is Rs. 24 per annum for the three years, Rs. 72. This rate on Rs. 875 is about Rs. 2-9.0 per annum per cent which is a remarkably low rate. The promissory note In question was on a printed form in Hindi, the kind of form which is commonly sold in the bazar and it was as follows: sud mo sud dar sud upar asal har shash mahi ke aj ki tarikh se taroz wasul kul mutalba ke bashrah do rupaiya mahwar....

(2.) The signature of the defendant is in Hindi and Is similar to the writing in which the form wart filled in. It is clear therefore that the blank in the form between the words "basharah" and "mahwar" was filled in in Hindi writing by the defendant and he wrote there the words "do rupia," that is ho entered Rs. 2. The question is, did this entry correctly represent the oral agreement as to interest between the parties? The lower Appellate Court has held that oral evidence on this point is admissible and on the evidence on the record the Court has held that the parties agreed that the interest should be Rs. 2 per cent per mensem and that the words "per cent" had been omitted by the defendant when he filled in the blanks in the printed form. On the other hand, for the appellant-defendant, it Is claimed that oral evidence is not admissible and that the entry as filled in by defendant should be taken to mean that there was a lamp sum of Rs. 2 payable and the construction placed by learned Counsel on the word "basharah" is that this word refers to the printed word which follows after the blank, that is "mahwar." The argument of learned Counsel is based on Section 92 that whore the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document, evidence shall note be admitted between the parties "for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms." Learned Counsel also relies on Section 93, Evidence Act, which provides: When the language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given it facts which would show its meaning or supply its defects.

(3.) On the other hand, reliance is placed for the plaintiff-respondent on Proviso 1 to Section 92 which states: Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want of failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.