Judgement

Consolidated Appeal and Cross-appeal (No. 40 of 1919) from a judgment of the High Court (December 15, 1916) varying a decree of the District Judge of Kristna at Masulipam.

The appeals related to the amount of principal and interest which the defendants (appellants in the

Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 150 ( 1920- 1921) Venkatadri Appa Row V. Parthasarathi Appa Row

48

main appeal) were entitled to recover from the plaintiff (respondent in the main appeal) by way of restitution in respect of money paid under a decree of the High Court which was reversed upon appeal to the Privy Council. The facts relevant to the appeal and cross-appeal appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

1921. March 1. De Gruyther K.C., Dube, Narasimham, and Palat for the appellants. The High Court was wrong in holding that the sums received had been appropriated by the appellants against the principal due. There was no appropriation by either party. That being the case the ordinary rule applies that the payments should first be applied in discharge of the interest due Bamundoss Mookerjea v. Omeish Chunder Raee (( 1856) 6 Moo. I. A. 289.) ; Maharaja of Benares

v. Har Narain Singh. (( 1905) I. L. R. 28 A. 2