SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Mad) 51

MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. RAJAGOPALAN,RAMACHANDRA IYER
V.Narayanaswami
Versus
Sri Mohan Prasad Singh Deo, Zamindar of Bodogode Estate, Ganjam District
O.S. Appeal No. 165 of 1953 and memo of objections
Decided On : 11February, 1958

Advocates Appeared:
P.S. Ramaswami Iyengar, for Appellant; B.V. Ramanarasu and M.L. Nayak, for Respondent.

Interest is accessory to and follows the principal and cannot be recovered apart from the principal.

Headnote:

LIMITATION ACT - ART. 74 - INSTALMENT BOND - INTEREST - INDEPENDENT CONTRACT - ACCESSORY TO PRINCIPAL.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 35,350 on the foot of a registered bond executed by the defendant and his father. The bond stipulated for the repayment of the debt in seven annual instalments commencing from 1-1-1938. The defendant pleaded that the action was barred by limitation inasmuch as the bond was one which stipulated for the repayment of the debt in seven annual instalments commencing from 1-1-1938, and that under Art. 74 of the Limitation Act only the claim in respect of the last instalment of Rs. 2000 which fell due on 1-1-1944 was in time.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the bond was an instalment bond within the meaning of Art. 74 of the Limitation Act and that the suit claim in respect of all except the last instalment was clearly barred by limitation. The court further held that the claim for interest was accessory to the principal and was therefore also barred by limitation.

Issues: 1. Whether the bond was an instalment bond within the meaning of Art. 74 of the Limitation Act? 2. Whether the claim for interest was accessory to the principal and was therefore also barred by limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the bond was an instalment bond within the meaning of Art. 74 of the Limitation Act because it stipulated for the repayment of the debt in seven annual instalments commencing from 1-1-1938. 2. The court held that the claim for interest was accessory to the principal and was therefore also barred by limitation because the general principle is that interest is accessory to and follows the principal and cannot be recovered apart from the principal.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and decreed Rs. 4176 with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent., per annum from the date of the plaint, in addition to what was decreed by the trial Judge. The memorandum of cross-objections was dismissed.

Judgement

RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. :- This appeal arises out of the decree and judgment in C.S. No. 14 of 1950, on the original side of this court. The plaintiff is the appellant. He instituted the suit under the Summary Chapter against the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,350 on the foot of a registered bond, Ex. P. 1, dated 3-3-1937, executed by the respondent and his father. The debt remained undischarged to any extent till the date of the suit. The respondent was granted on his application leave to defend, on condition that he deposited a sum of Rs. 3617 in court.

This was done by the respondent. In the trial the only pica that was raised was that the action was barred by limitation inasmuch as the bond was one which stipulated for the repayment of the debt in seven annual instalments commencing from 1-1-1938, and that under Art. 74 of the Limitation Act only the claim in respect of the last instalment of Rs. 2000 which fell due on 1-1-1944 was in time. Hamaswami Gounder, J., who tried the suit upheld this plea and held that on a reading of the bond, particularly, clause (b) it was clear that the time to sue for the instalments had started to run when there was a default in the first instant when they became due.

In this view the learned Judge passed a decree for the last instalment together with interest thereon at the rate stipulated in the bond. It is against this decree that the present appeal is preferred. The appellant has however confined his claim only to a sum of Rs. 4176 being the interest which had accrued within six years of the suit on the instalments of the principal amount the payment of interest being, it is said, based on an independent contract between the parties. In the alternative interest on the last instalment from the date of the bond, viz., Rs. 1430-9-0 is claimed. It may be necessary at this stage to set out the terms of the bond so far as may be relevant to this appeal.

Ex. P. 1 : (a) The executants hold themselves jointly and severally liable for and agree to nay the claimant his heirs, successors or assigns the sum of Rs. 20,000, with interest at 6 per cent., per annum from this date personally and from all their properties as per the instalments specified here under;

(b) The executants shall pay the claimant or his authorised agent the sum of Rs. 3,000, as the first instalment of the principal amount of this bond on or before 1-1-1938 and the balance in annual instalments of Rs. 3,000 on or before the 1-1-1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, and a last instalment of Rs. 2000 on or before 1-1-1944.

(c) The executants shall pay the claimant on the 1st January of each year commencing with 1-1-1938 the amount of interest due under the bond along with the instalment or instalments of principal due on such date, and on failure of such payment of interest on the due date the same shall be capitalised every year and carry interest at the same rate of 6 per cent., per annum and any unpaid instalment or instalments of principal shall also continue to carry interest at the same rate of six per cent., per annum till payment.

(d) The executants shall have the rights, if they choose to do so, to pay more than Rs. 3000 towards any annual instalment of principal and the claimant shall be bound to accept the same provided that all interest due by such date of payment is first paid up and the amount of principal in excess of Rs. 3000 is in multiples of Rs. 500. The executants shall also have the right to pay up at any time during the continuance of this bond, other than the stipulated dates for instalment payments, any sum in multiples of Rs. 500 towards the principal amount of this bond provided all instalments of principal and interest previously due are paid up;

(e) The claimant is not bound to accept annual instalments of less than Rs. 3000 but may if he chooses accept such smaller sums;

(f) In case the executants fail to pay any instalment or instalments of principal or the interest due on the due dates the clai






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top