1. In our opinion, the Subordinate Judge’s findings of fact as to the plaintiffs right to redeem cannot be said not to be based on evidence and must be accepted.
2. The appellants’ Vakil argues, relying on Narayan Ramchandra Bhatta v. Manager Nagappa 8 Ind. Cas. 411 : 12 Bom. L.R. 831 that the award of interest on a debt payable in kind is not authorised by Act XXXII of 1839, With great respect to the opinion of the learned Judges who were parties to the decision above quoted, we are unable to agree with their view.
3. We fail to see why a debt which is specifically expressed in measures of grain and payable at a specified time should not be regarded as a debt certain (assuming the latter adjective in Section 1 of the Act to qualify the word “debt” as well as “sum”) merely because the commutation rate at the time of payment or suit may have to be subsequently determined. We do not find anything in the other case quoted by the appellants’ Vakil, Juggomohun Ghose v. Manickchund 7 M.I.A. 263 : 4 W.R. (P.C.) 8 : 1 Suth. P.C. J. 357 : 1 Sar. P.C. 681 : 19 E.R. 308 to conflict with this view. In our opinion the award of interest on the porappad in the present case was justified.
4. The rate of interest is” however, very high (20 per cent.) and it runs for a period of 40 years and more. Accepting the finding of the Subordinate Judge that this is the usual rate in Malabar, the Act authorises the award of interest at a rate ‘ not exceeding the current rate” and we consider that, in the present case, the Court would have exercised its discretion wisely in reducing the rate to 6 per cent. The decree will be amended accordingly.
5. We see no reason why the interest awarded should not be set off against the sums due for kanom amount and improvements.
6. The appellants will pay half the respondent’s costs in this Court. The time for redemption is extended to six months from this date.
7. The Subordinate Judge’s decree with the modification above directed is confirmed.