The Court established the principle that the appellant would be entitled to interest at 15% from the date of suit till the date of realization on a sum of Rs.1,88,882/-, and the liability to pay interest would have ceased but for the unjust refusal made by the appellant.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w. Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013 of the learned VAdditional City Civil Judge at Chennai in O.S.No.5928 of 2012.)

R.Subramanian, J.

1. The defendant is on appeal, aggrieved by a decree for redemption granted by the Trial Court. A suit was laid by the respondents 1 and 2 seeking redemption of mortgage that was created on 28.06.1993 for a loan of Rs.85,000/-. There was another loan granted on 11.07.1995 for Rs.1,25,000/-. The plaintiffs sought for redemption valuing the amount that is due and payable under the both loan account is Rs.4,62,099.38/-.

2. The suit was resisted contending that the 1st defendant mortgagee had taken steps to auction the property and total amount due under the mortages comes to Rs.12,39,982/-. The Trial Court, afer framing necessary issues concluded that the 1st defendant mortgagee would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,62,099/- together with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.1,88,882/- from the date of suit i.e., 21.03.2006 till the date of realisation.

3. The only grievance that is projected by the learned counsel for the appellant is the rate of interest that has been granted after the suit. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in The Purasawakum Permanent Fund Ltd., Rep. By its Administrative Director Vs. G.Kamalam and Others made in S.A.No.549 of 2015, Mr.V.Ragupathi, learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant would be entitled to 15% interest per annum after the decree. He would also point out that the appellant, being a benefit fund surviving on the interest income and it has to pay the interest to the depositors also. Mr.V.Ragupathi, learned counsel for the appellant would also point out that the judgment of this Court made in S.A.No.549 of 2015 dated 26.09.2018 has been affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

4. Contending contra, Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Trial Court had given a valid reasons for granting 12% interest and the discretion to grant interest is vested in the Trial Court under Section 34 of C.P.C. The said discretion need not be interfered with in the appeal. We have considered the rival submissions.

5. No doubt, a discretion is vested in the Court to grant pedente lite interest but, such discretion is to be exercised judiciously. In a case of this nature, where the mortgagee is a financial institution, which seek deposits from public at a rate of interest and lends it to a needy at a little higher interest cannot be treated on par with a regular money lender. Therefore, we are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by this Court in S.A.No.549 of 2015, on the reasonings therein to grant interest at 15%. We therefore, conclude that the appellant would be entitled to interest at 15% interest from the date of suit till date of realisation on a sum of Rs.1,88,882/-. To that extent, the appeal is allowed. But, the controversy does not end there.

6. It is seen that the respondents 1 and 2 had offered the sum of Rs.6,44,435/-, being the amount due as per the decree of the Trial Court on 15.04.2014 and the same has been refused to be received by the appellant. There upon, they had also filed an application in M.P.No.2 of 2014, seeking a direction to deposit the said sum into Court. Unfortunately, the said application was not ordered. Therefore, we are have to decide what would be the effect of the conduct of the appellant in refusing to receive the money that was in discharge of the decree amount.

7.Mr.V.Ragupathi, learned counsel would contend that the refusal to receive was because of the pendency of the appeal and therefore, the appellants shall not be affected by such refusal. We find it difficult to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. A judgment debtor is entitled to offer the sum due under the decree to the decree holder at any point of time and the decree holder is bou