1. This appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21-03-1986 passed by the learned VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 1222/1985.

2. The appeal is confined to disallowance of interest by the trial Court as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed interest on a sum of Rs. 1,35,644.50 at the rate of 18% per annum. On a sum of Rs. 566.50, it claimed interest at that rate from 23rd October, 1982 and on the remaining sum of Rs. 1,35,078/- it claimed interest at 16% from 2nd November, 1982. The trial Court has disallowed the interest on the ground that there was no agreement for payment of interest on the suit transactions.

3. In this appeal, the plaintiff - appellant has claimed a sum of Rs. 19,684,60 as interest on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,35,644.50, at the rate of 18% per annum.

4. Therefore, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in law in disallowing interest as claimed by the plaintiff in its entirety?

5. No doubt, interest for the period prior to filing of the suit can be claimed and awarded if there is an agreement between the parties or the plaintiff proves the mercantile usage or custom or under the law. In the instant case, there was no agreement for payment of interest. The suit claim was for recovery of the value of the plants supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants. The invoices under which the plants were supplied did not contain any stipulation to the effect that in the event the payment was delayed the amount would carry interest at a particular rate. It was neither pleaded nor any evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to prove the trade usage or custom regarding interest payable on the suit claim. Therefore, the plaintiff only relied upon the provisions contained in S. 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

6. According to the case of the defendants no interest was claimed by the plaintiff until it issued the notice dated 12-03-1984 marked as Ex. P. 17. The suit was filed on 15-04-1985. Therefore, it was contended that at the most the plaintiff would be entitled to interest from 12-03-1984 to 15-04-1985 and not from the date of supply of the plants, nor from 26-07-1983 the date on which Ex. P. 8 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants. On the contrary, it is contended by the plaintiff that at least it is entitled to interest from the date it demanded. According to the plaintiff, the interest was demanded from the defendants in the letter dated 25/26-7-1983 Ex. P. 8 which was received by the defendants. Therefore, we will now consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest from 26-07-1983 or from 12-03-1984.

7. Under S. 3 of the Act, interest can be awarded on any debt or damage at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest for the whole or part of the period from the date when the debt is payable to the date of institution of the proceedings. The expression "current rate of interest" has also been defined under S. 2(b) of the Act as the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of deposits (other than those maintained in savings account or those maintained by charitable or religious institutions) by different classes of scheduled banks in accordance with the directions given or issued to banking companies generally by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The claim in the suit relates to debt because the debt as defined under clause 2(c) of the Act means "any liability for an ascertained sum of money and includes a debt payable in kind, but does not include a judgment debt." In the instant case, as already pointed out, the claim of the plaintiff was for recovery of the value of the plants supplied to the defendants. No doubt, as per S. 3(1) of the Act, interest can be awarded from the date the debt became payable. As per the invoices under which the plants were sent, the value was payable on receip