Patna High Court
Rai Bahadur Gajadhar Prasad Sah And Ors. vs Nath Mal Sah And Ors. on 29 April, 1969
Equivalent citations: 1969(17)BLJR981
JUDGMENT
1. Tins appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,631-8-0 on the basis of a hand-note dated the 29th June, 1954, as well as on the basis of Bahi Khata entry dated the 26th December, 1956. The appeal is confined to the question as to whether any decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents by way of compound interest.
2. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined five witnesses, but no witness was examines on behalf of the defendant-appellants. A perusal of the handnote, dated the 29th June, 1954, on the basis of which the present suit was brought, makes it clear that it was executed for a sum of Rs. 11,938-6-0 on account of various previous transactions. There is also a stipulation for payment of interest at the rate of 12 annas per centum per mensem.
3. Mr. Sailesh Chandra Sinha, appearing for the appellants, has, in the first instance, argued that the transactions prior to the execution of the handnote (Ext. 5/a) should be examined by this Court in order to see whether the appellants have been made liable to pay any compound interest on the various amounts advanced to them. We are not in a position to accept the submission of learned Counsel. It has been consistently held by this Court that, when a bond has been executed for an amount of money advanced or for past liabilities, it constitutes a loan within the meaning of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act. In case of such a bond, the amount for which it is executed is "the amount of loan" within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. Vide Singheshwar Singh and Ors. v. Medini Pd. Singh and Ors. A.I.R. 1940 Pat. 65; Madho Pd. v. Mukutdhari Singh and other A.I.R. 1941 Pat. 378. In another Bench decision of this Court, namely, in Lal Singh v. Ramnarain Ram and Ors. A.I.R. 1942 Pat. 138, it was laid down that, where the liability under the original loan was altered from time to time by the debtor executing fresh handnote, after the account had been adjusted between him and the creditor, the amount of loan in a suit upon the renewed handnote must be taken to be the amount for which the hand-note in suit was executed, and not the original sum advanced. The view expressed in the above decisions was approved by a Full Bench of this Court in Deo Nandan Prosad v. Ram Prasad A.I.R. 1944 Pat. 303, wherein it was laid down that, if the loan was based on a document (as in the present case), the amount of loan mentioned in such document would be taken to be the amount for the purpose of calculating as to whether the debtor had been made liable to pay compound interest. The decisions of this Court already referred to were approved by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Ram Nandan Prasad Narayan Singh and Anr. v. Kapildeo Ramjee and Ors. , and it was laid down as follows:
Under Section 7, the loan must relate to the document on which the suit is based and not the original one.
In view of the decisions referred to above, the transactions prior to the execution of the handnote in the present case cannot be looked into in order to see whether the appellants were made, liable to pay compound interest.
4. If, however, the appellants have been made liable to pay compound interest subsequent to the execution of the handnote (Ext. 5/a), that amount must be struck off. With this end in view, we have examined the last portion of the plaint wherein the details of the claim have been given. A perusal of this portion of the plaint makes it clear that the principal under Ext. 5/a, namely, Rs. 11,938-6-0, has been taken to be starting point of the amount due. Interest on this amount has been calculated from the 29th June, 1954 to the 4th March, 1955. The total of these two amounts comes to Rs. 12,759-2-0. Payment made on the 4th March, 1955. The total of these two amounts comes to Rs. 12,759-2-0. Payment made on the 4th March, 1955 to the tune of Rs. 1,000-0-0 has been deducted from this amount, leaving a balance of Rs. 11,759-2-0. Interest on this amount, calculated from the 5th March, 1955 to the 1st March, 1968, came to Rs. 3,174-15-0, and this amount when added to Rs. 11,759-2-0, the total came to Rs. 14,934-1-0. On 1st March, 1968, a sum of Rs. 3,051-11-0 was paid by the appellants, and this amount when added to Rs. 11,759-2-0, the total came to Rs. 14,934-1-0. On 1st March, 1968, a sum of Rs. 3,051-11-0 was paid by the appellants, and this amount, having been deducted, the balance came to Rs. 11,882-6-0. Subsequent interest from 2nd March, 1968 to 8th October, 1956 has been calculated on this amount, arid it came to Rs. 642-0-0. Adding this amount to Rs. 11,882-6-0, the total came to Rs. 12,524-6-0. There is a further claim of Rs. 91-2-0 on the basis of Bahi Khata entry dated the 26th December, 1956 to 8th October, 1958 at the rate of 12 annas per centum per mensem comes to Rs. 16-0-0, making a total of Rs. 107-2-0. The suit has been filed for realisation of Rs. 12, 631-8-0, as already stated. It is, therefore, clear that compound interest was not charged in the plaint and has not been allowed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge.
5. Mr. Sinha has also stressed the point that no interent should have been charged by the respondents at least on the amount of Rs. 91-2-0, as shown in the Bahi Khata, as there was no agreement between the parties to that effect. Mr. Agrawal has drawn our attention to the evidence of P.W. 1 who has stated that there was an agreement between the parties to pay interest at 12 annas per centum per mensem'' for the dues to the plaintiffs. This evidence is ex parte and has to be accepted, as the defdt-appellants did not choose to lead any oral evidence,
6. No other point has been pressed on behalf of the appellants.
7. There is no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs for this Court.