MUKAT LAL Vs. RAGHURAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F.A. No. 167 of 1938 is by the defendant against a decree by the Civil Judge of Bulandshahr under the Agriculturists Relief Act. Grounds 1 to 3 of appeal allege that the calculation of the amount due from the defendant to the, plaintiff is incorrect. The plaint set out that the suit was brought on two promissory notes which were in two series of separate transactions. Promissory note No. 1,-dated 24 March 1930 for Rs. 1,00,000, lent to defendant by plaintiff's firm at the rate of 12 annas per cent, per mensem with compound interest at six-monthly rests. Promissory note No. 2 of 14 March 1933 for Rs. 1,29,900-5-0, that is, the total due on No. 1, the rate of interest specified only as 12 annas per cent, per mensem, that is, this was at simple interest. No. 3, a promissory note of 6th March 1936 for Rs. 1,54,714 in lieu of No. 2. This was also specified with 12 annas per cent, per mensem, that is, simple interest. This was one of the notes in suit. Promissory note No. 4 of 7 October 1933 for Rs. 90,000 at 12 annas per cent, per mensem, also simple. Promissory note No. 5 of 13 September 1936 for Rs. 1,11,560 in lieu of No. 4 at 12 annas per cent, per mensem, which was simple. The suit therefore was brought for the total of promissory notes Nos. 3 and 5 which amounted to Rs. 2,97,033-6-6. The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory notes and the receipt of consideration in the written statement on p. 19 but he pleaded the benefit of the Agriculturists Relief Act. The claims put forward were under Section 30 for reduction of interest, and for instalments.

(2.) The particular point raised in the first three grounds of appeal is in regard to the calculation of interest. Now a table was supplied by the defendant-appellant on pp. 25 and 26 and in this table he calculated on promissory note No. 1 of 24th March 1930 compound interest. The Court below has however applied a higher rate of simple interest for the whole period of the transactions. The appellant claims that the Court below was not entitled under Section 30 and Schedule 3 to apply simple interest to transaction No. 1 because that was on a promissory note for compound interest. There is no provision in Section 30 which entitles a Court to change compound interest into simple interest. On the contrary the table in Sch. 3 shows for loans different rates according as the interest is compound or simple. The promissory note comes in the column of Unsecured Loans and being compound interest the rate should be X + 2 1/2, and under note (a) X is 4 1/2 per cent. 4 1/2 + 2 1/2 is 7 per cent, and this is the calculation which the defendant has made on p. 25. On the other hand the lower Court has given him X + 4 1/2 that is 4 1/2 + 4 1/2 or 9 per cent, taking this as simple interest. We have not been shown that there is any authority for this action of the Court below. We therefore allow the appeal of the defendant on this point and we hold that the calculation in regard to promissory note 1 should be at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum compound interest with yearly rests. The calculation on p. 25 is only for the period of promissory note No. 1. We therefore allow the appeal for the amount of Rs. 4402-8-11. The fourth ground of appeal is that the number of instalments should be increased. There were 20 instalments of six months each, which cover a period of ten years. This matter of instalments is one of discretion and the Court below has exercised its discretion. We do not think that we should alter the number of instalments as sufficient reason has not been shown to us. We therefore allow the appeal to the extent Indicated of Rs. 4402-8-11, with costs, as the defendant has succeeded on his main point.

(3.) F.A. No. 159 of 1938 is by the plaintiff against the decree of the Civil Judge of Bulandshahr in this, a suit on two promissory notes. The first ground of appeal was in regard to a list of property which was decreed as the property charged under Section 3(2), Agriculturists Relief Act. The table in question forms part of the decree and a note on p. 35 shows that the value of the property has been taken at 33 times the annual nett profits. We consider that 33 years purchase is much too high a rate of valuation. An additional list of property has been filed by the defendant which forms part of this judgment. It shows five more villages out of those appearing on pp. 29 and 30 and the nett profits of these five villages amount to Rs. 7524-2-0. Adding this to the nett profits of the villages in the list decreed which was Rs. 9670-9-0 we get a total of Rs. 17,194-11-0. Sixteen times this annual nett profit will attain approximately to the amount of the decree and we think that 16 years purchase is quite a fair rate. Accordingly we allow the appeal on this point and direct that these five villages shall be added to the schedule of property in the decree charged with this liability under Section 3(2), Agriculturists Relief Act.