ORDER
D.P. Sood, J.
1. Plaintiff is a society registered under the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1968, which carries on its business. Defendant is also a corporate body, the prime object of which is to provide facilities of residential and commercial facilities to the general public. Pursuant to the visit of the Chief Minister of the State the defendants initially agreed to allot plot No. 7 in Sector 2 In the Industrial Estate located at Parwanoo, measuring 17, 376 square metres @ Rs. 20/- per square metres valuing Rs. 3,47,520/-, though later on finding the actual measuring to be 16., 135,6 square metres, its price was reduced to Rs. 3,22,713/- instead of the original price. The plot was allotted and possession thereof was handed over on 1-12-1976. 10% of the permium out of the total price of the aforesaid plot was paid on 30-11-1976 before the delivery of its possession on the following date.
Remaining balance premium was agreed to be repaid in 15 instalments along with the interest calculated @ 9% per annum. One of the conditions was that in case of default of payment of the premium instalment or interest, the plaintiff would pay penal interest at double the rate of prevailing interest to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid transaction was an outright sale which matured in their favour on 2-4-1987 and the defendants were obliged to get the sale deed executed and registered in their favour, there being remisison of stamp duty and registration charges in relation to the transactions entered into between society etc. and the defendant. Further, the case, set up by the plaintiff is that compounding of interest was never agreed to and the defendants have been paid an excess amount of Rs. 63,779.53 paise by the plaintiffs towards the sale price of the plot in question in addition to the agreed amount which stood fully paid along with interest. The defendants’ claim for an amount of Rs. 1,22, 948.70 paise is illegal, unwarranted and contrary to the factual position exhibited by the prolonged correspondence exchanged between the parties. Thus, the plaintiffs, through this suit, have sought declaration to the effect that the aforesaid transaction is an outright sale by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs in lieu of Rs. 3,22,713.00 @ Rs. 20/- per square metre and as such, the plaintiffs are the absolute oweners in possession of the plot in question. In addition, relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute a sale deed and get it registered after observing the codal formalities has also been sought. Over and above, the plaintiffs claim a decree for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 77,183/- (principal Rs. 63,779.53 paise + interest 18% per annum from 3-8-1987 to 2-4-1988 + expenses of financial legal advice and ‘notice to the tune of Rs. 5,750/-) in their favour and against the defendants.
2. Defendants vehimently resisted and contested the suit for want of a valid notice as per law and insufficiency of requisite Court fee paid on the reliefs claimed. On merit, the factum on allotment of the plot for the price stated in the plaint and on the agreed rate of interest as alleged by the plaintiffs, is not disputed. However, it is contended that the aforesaid plot was allotted on lease hold basis for a period of 95 years in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 13th April, 1977 which was apart of the earlier activities of the defendants in handing over the possession of the plot in question. The averment qua outright sale of the plot, has been vehemently disputed. In addition to the terms of the transaction stated by the plaintiffs it is contended that the plaintiff had also to pay penal interest as per Clause (iv) of the allotment letter 13-4-1977. It is contended that the defendants are entitled to charge penal interest on the instalments which were not paid in the due time by the plaintiff. Further, the defendants contend that excess payments over an above the payment by way of instalments as and when made by the plaintiffs, have duly been given adjustments and the net result of the accounted for payments received from the plaintiff is that the defendant is still entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,22,948.70.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, this Court vide its order dated 7-8-1990 framed the following issues:
1. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD
2. Whether there was any privity of contract in between the parties with respect of the sale of disputed plot, as alleged? OPP
3. In case issue No. 2 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of contract by way of execution and registration of the sale deed by the defendants, as alleged? OPP.
4. In case agreement for sale as per issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the sale consideration was agreed to be paid by way of instalments, as alleged? OPP.
5. Whether the amount of consideration so alleged has been paid in excess to that of the agreed amount of the price of the plot.? If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover excess amount? OPP
6. Whether the disputed plot was allotted to the plaintiff by way of 95 years lease, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiffs failed to execute the lease deed and to make payment of lease money by way of instalments as agreed to in respect of the disputed plot, as alleged? If, so, its effect? OPD
8. Was the revised payment scheduled of lease money communicated to the plaintiffs on March 31, 1980 by the defendants, as alleged in para 12 of the pleadings? OPD
9. Whether a valid and legal notice has been served by the plaintiffs upon the defendant preceding the institution of the suit, as alleged? OPP
10. To what rate of interest, the defendant is entitled to recover from the plaintiff? OPP.
11. Whether the defendant has charged excess interest @ 18% instead of 9% upon defaulted payment of way of instalment, as alleged? OPP.
12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on the excess amount so allegedly paid by him? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
13. To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants? OPP.
4. Parties led their evience on issue No. 1 and vide order dated Oct. 28,1992, it was held that plaintiff ought to have valued the suit for Court fee purposes for the second relief at Rs.77,183/- being the amount of damages claimed by it in the suit which would also be the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. The above decision of issue No. 1 led to the amendment of the plaint with necessary modifications. Court-fee, being exempted in case of societies, like that of the plaintiff, was not paid in the instant case.
5. On the other issues also, parties have led their evidence in support of their respective claims.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the entire record.. During the course of arguments, in addition to the statement of account directed to be filed by this Court on March 3. 1994, indicating the receipt of payments, the amount due with and without penal interest, the defendants were again directed to submit fresh statements of account indicating the excess amount adjusted towards the payment of the balance premium and then re-scheduling it on the remaining instalments and calculating the interest compounded at the original rate of interest agreed to in between the parties as also at the prevailing rate of interest at the material time and subsequent thereto till the filing of the suit, respectively, which have been filed, Thus, 1 now proceed to decide the suit issuewise.
7. Issues Nos. 2 to 4. 6 and 7 All these issues are intrinsically mixed up with each other, the decision of which is based upon the discussion of common evidence adduced by both the parties, as such, I proceed to decide them together.
8. There is no dental of the fact that plot in question was agreed to be given to the plaintiffs as recommended by the then Chief Minister of the State which recommendation led to further discussion as to the mode of its delivery and the nature of the transaction in between the parties in respect thereof. In other words, parties inter se did agree to exchange the possession of the land in consideration of the amount to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. There exists a privity of contract in between them. Now the question arises as to what was the nature of transaction entered into between the parties.
9. In this respect, various documents have been relied upon by the parties, the most important out of which are Ex. P-3 to P-5. Ex. P-3 is dated 11-l 1-1976. According to it, Secretary of the defendant has indicated to the plaintiff’s representative that where the Chief Minister recommends an allotment to be made to the Society, like the plaintiff, allotments are made thereof by the Board (defendant) irrespective of the fact that the allottee is not setting up any industry. Para 2 of this letter further reveals that total price of the plot in annual instalments, as per recovery schedule attached therewith (Ex. P-4, 15 instalments) is to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, presuming December 1, 1976 as the date of allotment of the plot. Ex.P-5 indicates the payment of Rs. 34,752 – only being the first instalments towards the cost of the land allotted to the plaintiffs (10% of the total premium) initially agreed to be so paid.
10. Prior to the abovesaid communication is another letter dated October 21, 1976 whereby the area of the plot in question was indicated to the plaintiff to be 17356 square metres against cost of Rs. 3.47.520 -. Further information was sought whether the plaintiff wanted to pay the cost in lump sum or in instalments and in case of the latter, then 10% of the premium was needed to be paid before handing over possession and the balance amount in 14 equated annual instalments with interest @ 9%, In this letter, it was also pointed out that plaintiffs should indicate their intention so as to prepare lease agreement for their seeking and handing over possession. Lease agreement was also enclosed along with this letter, which ultimately led to the handing over of the possession on 1-12-1976. Thus, viewing the subsequent correspondence constituting of Ex. P-32. corresponding to D-9, P-36 to P-.19, P-47, P-48, P-51 and P-52. besides P-60, P-64. P-69. P-70, P-74 and P-76 as also subsequent correspondence exchanged in between the parties pertaining to the period subsequent to the handing over of the possession on 1-12-1976 till 18-3-1988; shows that defendants have repeatedly reminded the plaintiffs to execute and get the lease deed registered, On the other hand, the plaintiffs in their letters written to the defendants in addition to Ex.P-3 to Ex. P-5 i.e. by way of Ex. P-29, P-31, P-32, P-33, P-6, P-71, P-72 have been time and again indicating the defendants that the transaction entered into between them had been that of out-right sale and they have become owners. If the abovesaid correspondence is carefully scrutinised from 21st of October 1976 till 18-3-1988, it would show that defendants never intended to enter into an out-right sale of the plot. Rather, their intention had been to transfer the plot in question as recommended by the then Chief Minister on lease hold basis for a period of 95 years which is clearly indicated by the conduct of the defendants in having enclosed a copy of the lease deed with letter dated 21-10-1976 (Ex.D-5) and whereby the information as to whether the plaintiff wanted to have the plot for the price mentioned therein and if their intention was to go in for the same, whether the price thereof was to be paid in lump sum or otherwise. Even the execution and registration of the lease deed continued under correspondence. Defendants had been insisting upon the completion thereof whereas the plaintiffs have been indicating to the defendants to execute an outright sale deed in respect of the plot in question. Over and above, this intention of the plaintiff is indicated by the resolution of the Board of the plaintiffs society (P-25) dated 12-11-1976 which also refers to lease deed instead of the execution of the sale deed, in addition to the above said documents, the correspondence exchanged by the defendants with the plaintiff in the shape of Ex. D-1 to D-8, D-11 to D-18 and D-25 to D-27, D-33, D-35, D-51 and D-53 are also indicative of the intention of the parties with respect to the nature of the transaction entered into between them.
11. Thus, from whatsoever angle the documentary evidence exchanged in between the parties is viewed, it leads to no other conclusion except the one that the transaction was of the nature of leasehold rights to be created in respect of the plots in question and not that of the outright sale as averred by the plaintiff.
12. Having held that there was a privity of contract in between the parties with respect to the creation of the leasehold rights in relation to the plot in question, no question with respect to the entitlement of the plaintiffs qua specific performance of contract by way of execution and registration of the sale deed by the defendants arises.
13. As regards the agreement with respect to the payment of the price of the plot in question, the abovesaid correspondence clearly lay down that the said amount was to be paid by the way of instalments and not in lump sum. This fact has also not been contested by the plaintiffs. The prolonged correspondence exchanged in between the parties is indicative of the fact that though parties continued to stick to their respective stands which has resulted in delay of the execution of the regular lease deed with respect to the plot in question and for this, the plaintiffs are to be blamed who did not follow their own resolution (P-25).
14. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the plot in question was transferred on leasehold basis for a period of 95 years by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and the latter are bound to execute the lease deed and get it registered in accordance with law. Issues Nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7 are decided accordingly.
15. Issue No. 9– Under Section 50 of the H. P. Housing Board Act, 1972, service of two months previous notice in writing of the intended suit and of the cause thereof, is mandatory for the commencement of any suit against the Board or any officer or servant thereof for anything done or purported to have been done in pursuance of the said Act. In the instant case, the plaintiff has served the defendant with notice dated 1st February, 1988 Ex.P-7, the receipt of which has been admitted but contents whereof have been denied by the latter (defendant). A perusal of the said notice shows that it has been served upon defendants through its Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer strictly in terms of the requirements of the abovesaid section. The suit in question was filed on 2nd of April, 1988. Thus, this notice is a valid and legal notice which fulfils the conditions required by law. Shri Keshav Ram Gupta, PW-3, has proved the service of notice Ex.P-7 in his statement on oath. No evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by the defendants in this behalf. Viewing the evidence adduced by the parties, this issue is held proved by cogent and convincing evidence, which is decided accordingly.
16. Issue No. 10 — This issue relates to the question as to what rate of interest, the defendant is entitled to recover from the
plaintiff. Admittedly, the possession of the disputed plot was handed over to the plaintiff on 1-12-1976 pursuant to the correspondence exchanged in between them inter se prior to the said dale. The said correspondence constitutes of letters Ex.P-l and P-13 (both dated 29-9-1976), Ex.P-2, P-14 (both dated 13-10-1976), Ex.P-61, l etter dated 15-10-1976, Ex.D-5, letter dated 21-10-1976, Ex.P-62 corresponding to D-6, letter dated 10-11-1976, Ex.P-3 corresponding to D-7, letter dated 11-11-1976, P-25, resolution dated 12-11-1976 of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff and P-63, letter dated 15-11-1976. Out of this correspondence, letters P-13, P-1, P-14, P-62 and P-63 are the letters written by the plaintiff whereas P-2, D-5, P-3 and P-4 are letters written by the defendant. P-61 is a letter of the Government.
17. Learned counsel for the parties have not disputed the contents of the aforesaid letters. These letters have been proved by oral testimony of the witnesses produced by both the parties. In this view of the matter, 1 need not refer to the oral evidence. Needless to state that the plot in question was given to the plaintiffs on the recommendation of the then Chief Minister, as a special case. Defendants fully knew from the very beginning that plaintiffs were not setting up any industry over the plot so allotted to them. The contents of letter dated 11-11-1976 (Ex.P-3) read with that of another letter (Ex.D-5) reveal the intention of the parties that December 1, 1976 shall be considered to be the date of allotment. Also, the entire correspondence exchanged between the parties, prior and subsequent to 1-12-1976 shows that lease agreement (Ex. D-1) which was to be executed by the plaintiffs, formed basis of the allotment in question to the plaintiffs. This document, apart from other conditions of allotment, contained clauses (ii) and (iv) in respect of the payment of interest, with which 1 am primarily concerned under discussion of this issue, which read as follows:
“(ii) 10% of the price of the plot shall be charged as premium before handing over possession and the balance 90% of the price shall be recovered in 15 equal annual instalments, interest being calculated @9% of the entire balance amount. Incase, the Govt. rate of interest varies, the higher rate of interest will be chargeable. Annual instalment along with interest will be payable from the date of allotment of the plot as per schedule annexed to the lease-deed. (iv) In the event of any default on the part of the allottees in the payment of the premium of land or the interest due, a penal interest at double the rate shall be charged from the date of default until the outstanding arrears are fully cleared.”
There is no dispute between the parties that recovery schedule of plot, initially measuring 17,356 square metres @ Rs. 20/- per square metres and later revised recovery payment schedule pertaining to area measuring 16,135.66 square metres, was prepared and supplied by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Both these schedule included a note that in case the government raises the rate of interest, the higher rate of interest will be charged.
18. It is also not in dispute that there were defaults, either partly or fully, in the payment of some instalments and thereafter repayments have been made in larger amounts so that by 3-8-1987 the plaintiffs had paid in all Rs. 5,63,830.48 paise towards the repayment of the loan including the interest. At this stage, it would be pertinent to detail that us per revised recovery payment schedule, the total cost of the plot recoverable in 15 yearly instalments bearing interest @9% per annum was to be paid as under:
Year
Premium
Interest
Total
30-11-1976
10% cost
32283.99
32283.00
13-4-1978
19362.00′
26138.70
45500.70
13-4-1979
19362.00
24396.12
43758.12
13-4-1980
19362.00
22653.54
42015.54
13-4-1981
19362.00
20910.96
40272.96
13-4-1982
19362.00
19168.38
38530.38
13-4-1981
19362.00
17425.80
36787.80
13-4-1984
19362.00
15683.22
35045.22
13-4-1985
19362.00
13940.64
33302.64
13-4-1986
193162.00
12198.06
31560.06
13-4-1987
19362.00
10455.48
29817.48
13-4-1988
19362.00
8712.90
28074.90
11-4-1989
19362.00
6970.32
26332.32
13-4-1990
19362.00
5227.74
24589.74
13-4-1991
19362.00
3485.16
22847.16
13-4-1992
19362.00
1742.58
21104.58
Total
3.22.713.00
2,09,109.60
5.31.822.60
On the other hand, in accordance with the calculations made on behalf of the defendants, a sum of Rs. 1,22,948.70 paise inclusive of penal interest is still due to be recovered from the plaintiff.
19. On the perusal of the draft lease agreement (Ex. D-l) exchanged in between the parties and other correspondence, referred to in the previous paras, it is crystal clear that there is no stipulation whatsoever, and in any contingency for the charging of compound interest on the loan advanced or in default of any instalment thereof. It, therefore, follows that under no circumstances, compound interest could be recovered from the plaintiff. During the course of arguments, defendants have attempted to show that loan was granted to them by the Government at a higher interest chargeable thereupon which was 18.5% per annum w.c.f. 1-4-1984, 15% per annum w.e.f. 1-4-1986 and 17% per annum w.e.f. 16-7-1983. Letters pertaining to the advancement of loan on the abovesaid rates have beer, produced during the course of arguments. The defendants have not set up the case that the aforesaid increase of interest charged by the government from them was also intimated to the plaintiffs at the material time respectively. There is also no evidence on record to show that such intimation had at all been given to the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the loan transactions were exclusively entered into between the defendants and the government subsequent to the advancement of the loan, whereupon higher rate of interest was charged from them. It cannot be said there by
that the rate of interest had been increased by the Government and the plaintiffs are liable to pay the Name to the defendants. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff filed calculation chart in respect of the arrears and the amounts due from time to time, as on 14-4-1987. Thus, on the face of it, the amount shown as due against the plaintiff which includes compound interest, is not valid in view of the discussion made above, and as such, the whole of it is not liable to be recovered from the plaintiff. There is no obvious note for excluding the liability for compound interest, In other words, the defendants are entitled to recover from the plaintiff the balance amount at the agreed rate of interest on simple basis. Issue No. 10 is decided accordingly.
20. Issue No. 8 – The revised payment schedule of lease money appears to have been communicated to the plaintiffs on or before March 31, 1980 by the defendants. This fact is substantiated by the contents of letter dated 13-4-1977 (Ex. D-5) which gives the measurement of the area, the total premium chargeable from the plaintiff, period of lease deed and mode of recovery thereof in 15 equal annul instalments as also the rate of interest chargeable from them. Even the plaintiffs have raised objection on the ground that they had paid an amount of Rs. 34,752/- as 10% of the premium on the basis of the earlier recovery schedule (Ex. D-3) but the defendants had given adjustment of Rs. 32,283.99 only and, therefore, the yearly premium should have been Rs. 19,197.40 paise instead of Rs. 19362.00. This fact would not make any difference in case the amount, is, to be re-calculated, as the additional amount already paid is to be given adjustment towards the principal amount. In any case, the execution of the above said documents is admitted by the defendants during the course of trial which shows exchange of prolonged correspondence in between the parties with reference to the draft lease deed and the revised recovery payment schedule annexed thereto. The issue is decided accordingly.
21. Issue No. 11 The point in regard to the non-liability for the compound interest on the arrears remaining due having been settled under Issue No. 10, the only point that remains to be decided under this issue, relates to the plaintiff’s challenge to the charging of the penal interest at double the rate of normal interest provided in the terms and conditions contained in draft lease agreement and other correspondence exchanged thereto. In this regard, it may be stated that in view of clauses (ii) ana (iv) of the draft lease agreement, re-produced above, there is a clear stipulation of charging of interest at double the rate in case of failure of repayment of premium or interest on the due date, from the date of default till its recovery. In this connection, reference is invited to Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads as follows :
“74. Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for.-
When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.
Explanation.– A stipulation for increased interest from the date of default may be a stipulation by way of penalty.
Exception.– When any person enters into any bail-bond, recognizance or other instru-ment of the same nature, or under the provisions of any law or under orders of the Central Government or of any State Government, gives any bond for the performance of any public duty or act in which the public are interest he shall be liable, upon breach of the condition of any such instrument, to pay the whole sum mentioned therein.
Explanation.– A person who enters into a contract with the Government does not necessarily thereby undertake any public duty, or promise to do an act in which the public are interested.
Illustrations:
(a) A contracts with B to pay B Rs. 1000, – if he fails to pay B Rs. 500/- on a given day. A fails to pay B Rs, 500/- on that day. B is entitled to recover from A such compensation, not exceeding Rs. 1000/- as the Court considers reasonable.”
A reading of the aforesaid provision along with clauses (ii) and (iv) of the draft lease deed brings out that interest could be charged by way of penalty on the defaulted instalments. Now the defendants, as per the terms contained in the draft lease deed, have already calculated interest @9% along with each instalment on the balance amount of the 90% premium. Therefore, over and above this interest, penal interest on the double rate cannot be allowed. At the most, the defendants can be allowed to charge simple interest @9% on the defaulted instalments from the dates of their defaults till its recovery. Thus, to conclude, the charging of simple interest @9% per annum from the date of default till its repayment, in case of defaulted instalments is held legal, but the accounts are directed to be re-opened so as to remove the liability for payment of compound interest. Issue No. 11 is decided accordingly.
22. Issues Nos. 12 and 13 — Both these issues are inter-connected with each other and as such, 1 proceed to decide them together. Under these issues, this Court is obliged to determine as to what is the outstanding
liability of the plaintiffs towards the defendants. As already observed, calculation chart with rcspect to cost of industrial plot No. 2, recoverable in 15 yearly instalments. bearing interest @9% per annum has been filed by the defendants. Calculation Chart No. 2, indicating that Rs. 1,22,470 – are still due us on 31-3-1994, was also filed hut I am not concerned with it, as the interest has not only been compounded but also increased rule of interest has been charged, to which the defendants are not entitled.
The factum of yearly instalments, commencing from 13-4-1978 up to 13-4-1992, i.e., 15 yearly instalments as also the dates of payment of the amounts by the plaintiffs to the defendants to the tune of Rs. 5,63,8,10,48 paise is not in controversy. There is no dispute that in case premium and interest was paid year-wise in 15 instalments, the plaintiff was to pay to the defendants an amount of Rs. 5.31.822.60 paise inclusive of interest. However, as per the table given below, the plaintiff has paid in lump sums, without adhering to the instalment amounts of premium interest thereupon yearwise, and as such, the excess amount so paid was liable to be adjusted towards the principal amount by the defendants:
Date
Amount
30-11-1976
Rs. 34.752.00
20-2-1978
Rs. 1.00.000.00
1-10-I986
Rs. 1.30.000.00
9-10- 1986
Rs 2.00.000.00
2-4-I987
Rs. 69.006.00
30-4-1987
Rs. 29.822.48
3-8-1987
Rs. 250.00
Total
Rs. 5.63,830.48
For illustration sake, had the plaintiff paid the entire balance amount of premium on 13-4-1978, the date of payment of first instalment, he was only liable to pay interest to the tune of Rs. 26,138.70 in addition thereto. Thereby, his entire liability would have wiped out. In the said circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the excess amounts which the defendants were not otherwise entitled to receive except on the agreed date of instalments, are liable to be adjusted towards the principal amount and then they were bound to re-schedule the remaining premium into the remaining instalments. On this principal, a direction was given to the defendants to file the calculation Chart No. I. Thus, according to the calculations after having satisfied myself, the plaintiffs appear to have paid an amount of Rs. 13,485,48 paise in excess of their outstanding liability towards the defendants in respect of the allotment of the plot in question as on 14-4-1987. I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover this amount from the defendants.
24. As regards the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover interest on the excess amount, suffice it to state that 9% interest has been allowed to the defendants on the outstanding dues payable by the plaintiff society. Taking an equitable view. I also allow the same rate of interest on simple basis to the plaint iff on the excess amount from 14-1-1987 up to the dale of its realisation. Both these issues are decided accordingly.
25. Relief In view of the discussion made above, the suit is partly decreed, to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 13,485,48 paise with interesi @9% per annum w.e.f. 14-4-1987 till the dale of its realisation. The plaintiffs’ suit, with respect to the remaining reliefs, is dismissed. Keeping in view the conduct of the parties, they are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.