Interest pendent title payable ordinary at contract rate.

NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.:- The defendant in C.S. No. 81 of 1968 on the original side of this court is the appellant in this appeal. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff who died pending the suit. The deceased plaintiff laid the suit for the recovery of the amounts due on a promissory note, marked in this case as Ex. P. 1 dated 27-3-1967 executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 49671 with interest thereon at 10 ½ per cent per annum. The defendant contended in the main that he had several money dealings with the deceased plaintiff from the year 1945; that the deceased plaintiff had been a professional money lender, that he had been charging interest on arrears of interest due on each loan advanced by him under a promissory note and taking renewal promissory notes for the total amount including compound interest every two or three years; that for the suit promissory note, the actual amount borrowed by him was only Rs. 17300, under four promissory notes, viz., Rs. 4000/- on 4-4-1955, Rs. 10000 on 18-11-1955, Rs. 1700 on 1-4-1958 and Rs. 1600 on 7-8-1961, that these promissory notes were renewed by three promissory notes with added interest on 10-3-1958 for Rs. 18085; on 27-3-1961 for Rs. 26779 and on 12-3-1963 for Rs. 35341, and that eventually the single promissory note for the consolidated sum of Rs. 49671/- including further interest and interest on interest due up to 27-3-1967 was taken from him. The defendant wanted to be relieved and protected against such untenable, usurious, unfair and unconscionable claim of Rs. 32371/-, and he sought relief under the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, and the Madras Money Lenders Act by reopening all the aforesaid transactions prior to the suit promissory note and ascertaining the reasonable amount payable for interest. According to the defendant, upon such calculation, the interest lawfully payable on the principal debt of Rs. 17300 will be less than Rs. 10000. The defendant also refers to the prior litigation between him and the plaintiff in respect of the mortgage dated 9-5-1949 executed by him in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 3,15,000/- and the pendency of the Civil App. No. 2175 of 1972 before the Supreme Court of India. According to him, the final decision of the Supreme Court will enable this court to determine as to whether the suit promissory note also will get discharged or not upon reopening all the money dealings between him and the deceased plaintiff. The defendant would also challenge the competency of plaintiffs 2 and 3 to come on record as the joint executors of the codicil purported to have been left by deceased plaintiff. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration -

1. Whether the suit pronote is a renewal of prior pronote with added interest and interest on arrears of interest?

2. In the event of any excess payment being found in C. A. 2175 of 1972, then is the defendant entitled to have the same adjusted in law or in equity in discharge of the admitted claim of the suit pronote?

3. Whether the defendant is entitled to relief under the Usurious Loans Act and the Madras Money Lenders Act; and if so, to what extent?

4. Is the defendant entitled to have the decree, if passed, in this suit, stayed till the disposal of Civil Appeal on the file of the Supreme Court of India?

5. Are the plaintiffs 2 and 3 entitled to the suit claim, as legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff?

6. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?"

Suryamurthy J. who tried and disposed of the suit found all the issues against the defendant and the suit was decreed with costs as prayed for, less a sum of Rs. 31000 paid after suit. However, the learned Judge granted interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit. As against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendant. The respondents herein have filed the memorandum of cross objections