( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs appeal whose suit for redemption of mortgage of their house has been decreed by the trial Court. In this appeal they have assailed the direction of the trial Court requiring the plaintiffs to pay to the defendant the sum of Rs. 10,000/- being the sum advanced by the defendant as loan which was secured by the mortgage.

( 2 ) THE short question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the preliminary decree which is impugned is legal and valid inasmuch as it is not drawn up in accordance with R. 7 of O. 34 of the Civil P. C. In other words, whether there should have been a direction first for an account being taken of what was due to the defendant at the date of the decree for principal and interest on the mortgage and thereafter a declaration ought to have been made of the amount if any, to be paid to the defendant. Indeed, it is contended in this appeal that the mortgagors/plaintiffs have paid a total amount of Rs. 28,000/- towards principal amount and interest due under the mortgage and as such they were entitled to refund of the amount illegally realised from them by the defendant/ mortgagee and that there could be no direction against them for payment of any amount to the defendant.

( 3 ) IN this connection, it would be appropriate to note that in the suit, as many as eight issues were struck and tried, but the controversy which has to be resolved in this appeal is covered by issue No. 7 and three sub-clauses of issue No. 4. In respect of the three different propositions of facts and law covered by issue No. 4, the conclusion recorded by the trial Court may be summarized as follows : (A) The defendant had recovered a sum of Rs. 20, 400/- from the plaintiffs by way of rent for the mortgaged house, as alleged in the plaint, (b) The plaintiffs were not entitled to claim adjustment of the said payment against principal and interest on the loan advanced; and (c) The plaintiffs had not made an excess payment of Rs. 1,925/- against loan advanced. The conclusion of the trial Court as respects the matter covered by issue No. 7 is that the decision rendered in Suit No. 35-A of 1971 between the parties concerning tenancy right operated res judicata.

( 4 ) AT this stage, some admitted facts having a bearing on the question to be decided in this appeal may be stated. Two documents were contemporaneously executed on 13-11-1967, namely, a mortgage-deed and a rentnote, proved in the suit as Exs. D/1 and D/2 respectively. Although under rent note it was contemplated that the plaintiffs would occupy the mortgaged-house as tenants on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month under the mortgage-deed, the first and foremost condition of the mortgaged deed was as follows :

( 5 ) BEFORE suit was instituted, the plaintiffs served a notice (Ex. P/2) on the defendant alleging that they had paid from time to time an amount totalling to Rs. 20,400/- and their liability under the mortgage transaction having been liquidated in full, they were entitled to receive back the title-deeds of the mortgagedhouse and to get the discharge of the mortgage recorded by the defendant. The defendant sent a reply (Ex. P/3) through her lawyer in which it was admitted that a sum of Rs. 20,200/- had been received from the plaintiffs, but she claimed that the mortgage could not be deemed discharged inasmuch as a total sum of Rs. 34,807. 25 was the liability of the plaintiffs which had to be discharged. In this letter, it was mentioned that among others, the plaintiffs had to pay to the defendant Rs. 10,000/- as the mortgage loan and Rs. 23,400/- against rent and mesne profit.

( 6 ) THE short question which is mainly agitated in this appeal is, whether the claims of the defendant for payment of interest at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month could be legally a allowed inasmuch as the rate of interest being reckoned at 24 per cent per annum, would be illegal and not enforceable. However, it is necessary first to dispose of th