1. Mortgage debt dispute — Application for relief under United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 — Re-determination of principal and interest under 1939 Amendment Act. (Para 5 )
Back
Next 
1945 Supreme(SC) 13
Privy Council At Oudh
Sir John Beaumont, Sir Madhavan Nair , Justice Lord Thankerton, JJ.
Kunwar Rajendra Bahadur Singh -Appellant
Versus
Justice Kunwar Dalip Singh -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 7 of 1944; Oudh Appeal No. 16 of 1942
Decided On : 19-03-1945
Advocates Appeared:
Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., White, Lambert, L.M. Jopling, Sir H. Cunliffe, R. Parikh, J.M. Parikh
Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., White, Lambert, L.M. Jopling, Sir H. Cunliffe, R. Parikh, J.M. Parikh
A substituting mortgage constitutes a contract made in the course of the transaction. Interest capitalized under such a mortgage before the statutory cutoff date is treatable as principal. Retrospective amendments are not ultra vires if they do not alter the substantive rights of the parties.
Headnote:(A) United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 - Section 14 - United Provinces Encumbered Estates Amendment Act, 1939 - Section 14 and 20A - Government of India Act, 1935 - Section 292 - Determination of principal and interest - Capitalization of interest - Whether interest converted into principal under a mortgage deed substituting a previous mortgage constitutes a contract made in the course of the transaction - If the mortgage transaction commenced prior to the statutory cutoff date, a substituting mortgage executed within the specified period is a contract made in the course of the transaction, and capitalized interest therein up to the cutoff date is treatable as principal.
(B) Retrospective Legislation - Challenge under Section 292 of the Government of India Act, 1935 - If the retrospective provisions of an amending act do not alter the substantive rights of the parties because the result would have been the same under the original act, the question of whether such provisions are ultra vires is unnecessary to determine.
Facts of the case:
A landlord applied under the 1934 Act to limit interest on debts. The debt originated from a 1912 mortgage, which was substituted by a 1915 mortgage containing provisions for capitalizing interest. A subsequent mortgage was executed in 1929. The first Special Judge limited the principal, excluding certain capitalized interest. Following an amendment in 1939 that allowed re-determination of claims under Section 20A and clarified the treatment of interest converted to principal on or before 31st December 1916, a second Special Judge increased the principal amount. The appellant challenged the validity of the 1939 amendment, arguing it was retrospectively ultra vires under the Government of India Act, 1935.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the 1915 mortgage was a contract made in the course of the transaction that began in 1912. Consequently, capitalized interest under the 1915 mortgage up to 31st December 1916 should have been treated as principal under the original 1934 Act. The re-determination of the claim under the 1939 Act was therefore correct as it aligned with the proper interpretation of the original law.
Issues: Whether the amendments to the 1934 Act made by the 1939 Act were ultra vires due to their retrospective nature under Section 292 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
Ratio Decidendi: A mortgage substituting a previous mortgage is a contract made in the course of the transaction. If the transaction commenced before the statutory cutoff date, interest capitalized under the substituting mortgage up to that date is treatable as principal. Where the outcome under the amended law is identical to what it should have been under the original law, a challenge based on retrospective invalidity is redundant.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
mortgages
-
encumbered estates
- capitalization of interest
-
encumbered estates
-
mortgages
-
practice and procedure
- statutory interpretation
-
constitutional law
-
legislative competence
- retrospective legislation
-
legislative competence
Table of Contents
2. Under what circumstances can a claim be re-determined under Section 20A of the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Amendment Act, 1939?
A claim may be re-determined if interest was not treated as principal solely because it was converted into principal on or before 31 December 1916, in accordance with express terms in the original contract. (Para 6 )
Sir John Beaumont.-
This is an appeal from and judgment and decree dated 13th April 1942, of the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow, which modified a judgment and decree dated 25th May 1938, as amended by a judgment and decree dated 9th May 1940, or the Special Judge, First Grade, Barabanki, under the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1934 Act"). The questions raised in the appeal relate to the construction and effect of the 1934 Act as amended by the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Amendment Act, 1939 (hereinafter called "the 1939 Act"). The facts giving rise to the appeal are not in dispute.
On 23rd January 1912, Raja Raghuraj Bahadur Singh borrowed Rs. 5,00,000 from Raja Sir Harnam Singh, carrying interest compoundable half-yearly on the terms of a mortgage deed. On 20th October 1915, Raja Raghuraj Bahadur Singh executed a fresh mortgage (hereinafter referred to as "the mortgage of 1915") in favour of Raja Sir Harnam Singh, in substitution for the mortgage of 1912 for securing Rs. 5,71,490-13-9 carrying interest at 6 per cent. per annum payable on 30th June and 31st December in each year, with a provision that if any half-yearly instalment of interest was not paid on the due date it should be added to principal and carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. The rate of interest was subsequently raised, but nothing turns upon this. On 8th January 1926, Raja Sir Harnam Singh obtained a preliminary decree on the mortgage of 1915 which decree was made final on 26th February 1927. In the year 1925, the mortgagor having died, his sons divided the estate and liabilities between themselves. One of the brothers paid off his share of the mortgage debt under the mortgage of 1915, and on 17th October 1929, the other son, namely the appellant, Kunwar Rajendra Bahadur Singh, executed a fresh mortgage (hereinafter referred to as "the mortgage of 1929") in favour of Raja Sir Harnam Singh to secure the appellant's share of the mortgage debt amounting to Rs. 7,60,108-11-9. Interest was to be payable at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum and there was a provision for capitalising interest in arrear similar to that in the mortgage of 1916. In February 1936, a decree for sale was made of the property comprised in the last mentioned mortgage.
In April 1935, the Act of 1934 came into operation. By S. 4, the right is given to any landlord who, or whose immovable property, is encumbered by private debts, to make an application to the Collector of the District re-questing that the provisions of the Act be applied to him. The Collector is required to forward the application to the Special Judge appointed under the Act. Section 14 provides for the hearing of the application by the Special Judge. Sub-sections (4) (a), (5) and (6) are in the following terms :
"(4) In examining each claim the Special Judge shall have and exercise all the powers of the Court in which a suit for the recovery of money due would lie and shall decide the questions in issue on the same principles as those on which such Court would decide them, subject to the following provisions namely :
(a) the amount of interest held to be due on the date of application shall not exceed that portion of the principal which may still be found to be due on the date of application.
(5) For the purpose of ascertaining the principal under cl. (a) of sub-s. (4) the Special Judge shall treat as principal any accumulated interest which has been converted into principal at any statement or settlement of account, or by any contract made in the course of the transaction before 31st December 1916.
(6) For the purpose of ascertaining the principal under cl. (a) of sub-s. (4) the Special Judge shall not treat as principal any accumulated interest which has been converted into principal at any statement or settlement of accounts or by any contract made in the course of the transaction after 31st December 1916."
The effect of the Act seems to be that the Specia
