The Madhya Bharat Interest Act, 1956, applied to the mortgage transactions and restricted the rate of interest to six per cent per annum simple on the principal sums due. The Act was not ultra vires the Constitution as it did not offend Article 14, which guarantees equal protection of the laws.

( 1. ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for redemption and possession of certain suit properties has been dismissed by the Court of the District Judge, Gwalior.

( 2. ) THE plaintiffs are auction-purchasers of the right of redemption in a Court auction sale. This auction sale was held in execution of a money decree of one Mahadeo Prasad against one Roshanlal, the original mortgagor. There were two mortgages in respect of the suit property both in favour of the defendant-respondent. The first was dated 9th September 1939. It was in favour of the defendant-respondent Murlidhar for a consideration of Rs. 7000. 00. It carried interest at 12 annas per cent per month and was redeemable after two years. The mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage. It contained a stipulation that the mortgagee shall be entitled to recover rents and profits of the mortgaged house and if the rent of the year was insufficient to meet the liability for interest for that period, the unpaid interest shall be capitalised in the next year. The second mortgage was in similar terms and was dated 10/7/1940. It was for a further consideration of Rs. 1000. 00. All the conditions of the first mortgage were made the conditions of the second mortgage, except in one respect, i. e. , the second mortgage provided that as from 10/7/1940 interest on the total sum then due was chargeable at Rs. 12 per cent per annum. The date of redemption of this mortgage was Hkknks cnh "laer"

( 3. ) THE suit of the plaintiffs was principally for the determination of the price of redemption of the mortgages in suit. They, therefore, in their suit for redemption and possession, inter alia, claimed the following reliefs:

1. That the defendant was not entitled to compound interest on the principal amounts due on the mortgages; and 2. That the rule of "dam-dupat" applied and consequently the defendant could in no case recover as interest a sum more than the principal of the loan which admittedly was Rs. 8000. 00.

( 4. ) THE trial Court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs, but negatived both the aforesaid reliefs claimed by them. The decree directed the appointment of a commissioner for taking accounts to determine the price of redemption of the two mortgages and for that purpose it also gave certain directions to the commissioner regarding:

(i) how rents and profits of the mortgage security which was in the possession of the defendant was to be calculated; (ii) how and at what rate interest was to be calculated on the principal of the loan advanced under the two mortgages; and (iii) how the rents and profits so calculated were to be adjusted towards the claim for interest.

( 5. ) IN this appeal, the dispute is with regard to those directions only. The plaintiffs claim, first, that the interest charged was penal and could not be decreed at the rate claimed by the defendant and, secondly that the rule of "dam-dupat" applied and consequently the claim for interest could never exceed Rs. 8000. 00.

( 6. ) THE appeal was filed on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 15/ and the first objection of the defendant-respondent was that as the memo of appeal was understamped, there was no proper appeal filed and consequently the decree of tne trial Court had become final and could not now be varied.

( 7. ) THE question had once before been considered by the Court and the note then put up by the Deputy Registrar was that the memo of appeal was properly stamped. It was pointed out that there was no dispute with regard to the right of redemption, nor with regard to the principal money due on the mortgages and the only dispute was in regard to the method and manner of calculating the price of redemption which depended mainly on the question whether interest could be decreed at the rate claimed and whether the rule of dam-Dupat, applied.

( 8. ) IN our opinion, the note of the Deputy Registrar was correct and there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. In th