Pedda Subbaraya Chetti And Ors. vs Ganga Razulungaru And Ors. on 24 November, 1896

Madras High Court
Pedda Subbaraya Chetti And Ors. vs Ganga Razulungaru And Ors. on 24 November, 1896
Equivalent citations: (1897) ILR 20 Mad 149
Bench: Shephard, Davies


1. Two points are raised in this appeal. The first relates to the claim for interest accruing after the due date fixed for the payment of the principal in the mortgage instrument of the 19th December 1882. The Dis trict Judge considers that the instrument contains no stipulation, express or implied, to pay interest after the 14th July 1886, by which day the mortgagor undertakes to pay the principal. He refers to one of the numerous cases dealing with the question of interest payable under a mortgage. It is not necessary to discuss those cases, firstly, because the question is entirely one of construction to be answered with reference to the language of the particular instrument, and secondly, because we have a recent ruling of the Judicial Corn-mittoo by which we must be guided in construing that instrument. Mathura Das v. Raja Narindar Bahadur I.L.R. 19 All. 39.

2. In this case, after stating how the sum of Rs. 4,797-10-6 has come to be due, the instrument goes on to say that “for the payment of the principal and interest which may accrue at the rate of 3/4 rupee per cent, per mensem we have hypothecated, etc.” Then the property is described and the instrument pro ceeds to state bow the money shall be paid. The interest is to be paid on the 30th Panguni of each year, and in case of default compound interest. The principal is to be paid by the end of Ani of the Parthiva year.

3. Now, it is true that there is not in terras a stipulation to pay interest after the end of Ani in the year Parthiva, and hence it is argued that the parties did not intond such payment to be made. But we have to look at other parts of the instrument besides the covenant to pay the principal on a fixed date. The amount found to be due and secured as principal is arrived at by calculating interest on sums originally due by the mortgagors, and the hypo thecation is expressed to be for the payment of that principal and interest as it may accrue. That sooms to show that interest was to be paid in the future as well as in the past. Then there is the clause providing for compound interest which certainly points to a liability for interest accruing after the due date. These provisions are more consistent than otherwise with an intention which in itself is the most probable one, when, to use the language of the Judicial Committee, regard is had to “the ordinary expectations of persons enuring into a mortgage transaction.” We should only be defeating those expectations if wo held with the District Judge that the mortgage document earned no interest after the duo date. We are, therefore, of opinion that according to the right construction of the instrument the mortgagor incurred the obligation to pay interest on the principal amount remaining unpaid on the 14th July 1886.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *