LexRAJA SARDAR NARAIN AND OTHERS versus RAJA SARDAR NARAIN AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I o 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [Hl6 l] SARDAR SAMSHER SINGH v. RAJA SARDAR N"ARAIN AND OTHERS. (S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYA'l'ULLAH, K. c. DAB GUPTA, J.C. SHAil and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYA:SGAR, JJ.) Debt Relief-Decree on mortgage-·-Rcduction of inlcrest--Sta- tutt Prohibiting allowing of interest excced:.ng principal sum due- Appli"catio11 of-Relevant dalc-U. P. Enrnmbered Estates Act, 1934 (U. P. XXV of 1934), s. 14(4)(a). N borroy:ccl rupees one lakh from Don 1nortgagc of a house and Zamin<lari interest on :\larch I, 1924. Interest \Vas 8% per annum compoundable with six monthly rests. In 1932 the mort- gagee filed a suit on the mortgai;e and a dec:ec was passed for the recovery of Rs. r,83.781/si9 pnnc1pal and interest upto the date of the suit and Rs. 49,280/2/6 interest from date of the suit upto the date fixed for payment, with future interest at 6",1. per annum simple on the principal sum. On the failure of the mort- gagor to pay by the date fixed a final decree was passed on May 9, 1935. for sale of the property for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2.37.503i5.t(1 which had become due. On October 26, rq36, N made an application under s. 4 of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, r934, rec1uesting that the provisions of the Act be applied to him. Section 14(4)(a) of the Act provided that "the amount of interest held to be due on the date of application shall not exceed that portion of the principal which may stili be found to be due on the date of the application".· N contc11ded that in view of s. 14(4)(a), D was not entitled to recover any sum as interest in excess or the principal sum of rupees one lakh. ]) contended that it was not necessary to reopen the dec- ree as the principle of s. 14(4)(a) had not hcen violated in pass- ing the decree. Held, that the proper decree that should have been passed on the application was for rupees two lakhs for the principal and interest plus costs and interest penclente lite and future interest at 4% per annum. The words" on the date of the appli- cation" in s. 14(4)(a) of the Act had been deliberately used to benefit the applicant by recluci11g the interest to the amount of the principal found still due on the date of the application, \vhatcver amount of interest rnay be due under the contract. The fact that there had been a decree did not make any difference in giving the benefit of the section to the applicant. Pandit Ramsagar Prasad v. Mst. Shayama, A.LR. 1939 Oudb 75, disapproved. RHki.n-uddin v. Lachhmi Narain, l.L.R. 1945 All. 307, referred to. ~ ., 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 119 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 216 of 1954. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Septem- ber 26, 1946, of the former Chief Court of A vadh at Lucknow, in First A-ppeal No. 7 of 1940. N aunit Lal, for the appellant. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, J.B. Dadachanji and P. L. Vohra, for respondent No. 1. 1960. August 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sardar Samsher Singh v. Raja Sardar Narain & Others DAS GUPTA J.-This appeal raises the question of Das Gupta J. interpretation of s. 15 of the United Provinces Encum- bered Estates Act, 1934. On March 1, 1924, Sardar Nihal Singh, the predecessor of the appellant before us, borrowed a sum of rupees one lakh from Raja Durga Narain Singh, predecessor of the respondents, on mortgage of a house in Butlergunj, Lucknow and also the entire Zamindari interest in a village Par- sera. Interest was 8 per cent. per. annum compound with six .monthly rests. In 1932 Raja Durga Narain Singh brought a suit for recovery of Rs. l,83,791-5-9 on account of principal and interest due on the mortgage, by sale of the mortgaged property. Iu this suit the Subordinate Judge, Lucknow, made a preliminary decree declaring the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage calculated up to March 29, 1935, to be Rs. 1,83,791-5-9 up to the date of the suit, Rs. 49,280-2-6 as the amount due on account of inte- rest thereupon from March 13, 1932, the date of the suit to March 29, 1935, the date fixed for payment. A sum of Rs. 4,314-2-9 was awarded as the cost of the suit. The defendant was ordered to pay this total sum of Rs. 2,37,385-11-0 before the 29th day of March, 1935, with future interest at 6 per cent. per annum simple on the principal sum of rupees one la.kb. The amount not having been.paid on that date, the Court on an application made by the mortgagee-decree- holder made a fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.