JUDGMENT

Fletcher, J. - This is a matter which relates to what is known as the rule of damdupat. The rule applies to Hindus dealing with one another, and is one of equity and good, sense. It is that the amount of interest a creditor can recover against his debtor shall not exceed the amount of principal. The present application arises in a mortgage suit, and arises under these circumstances. The question is, does this rule of damdupat apply to cases where default is made by the mortgagor in payment of the principal, interest and costs after the day appointed for payment by the Court. The decisions in this Court on that point are contradictory. The first decision that has been referred to is that of Mr. Justice Sale in Ram Kanye Audhicary v. Cally Churn Dey ILR(1894) Calc. 840. A decision to the contrary effect was given by Mr. Justice Woodroffe in an Insolvency case in the matter of Hari Lal Mullick ILR(1906)Calc. 1269. In my opinion, so far as the general principle applies, the decision of Mr. Justice Woodroffe seems to me to be correct in principle. This rule of damdupat applies as a matter of contract when Hindus are contracting with one another. It has nothing to do with the dec