GEORGE Vs. SUBRAMONIA IYEN
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) 2nd defendant is the appellant. The only two points raised in the appeal are (1) that the capitalisation allowed by the lower court is not warranted by the stipulations in Ext.A and hence even when interest is awarded on the defaulted interest the limitation imposed by S. 31 of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code has to govern the money claim in the suit, and (2) that the paddy due under the plaint document has to be valued at the nirak rate on the due date.
(2.) On the question whether S. 31 of the Travancore C.P.C. has to govern the suit, there is dispute between the parties. The Code was in force when the suit was instituted. We feel no doubt that the limitation imposed by S. 31 of that Code is a matter affecting substantive right and not one of mere procedure. The decision in 1943 T.L.R. 509 is also to the same effect. Hence we hold that S. 31 must govern the money portion of the claim in the suit.
(3.) The next aspect to be considered is whether there is any provision in Ext. A to treat the defaulted interest as a principal. There is no such provision in the document. The only provision is that interest in default will carry future interest at the stipulated rate. But still the defaulted interest remains as interest in relation to the principal amount of Rs. 729/- and hence the limitation imposed by S. 31 C.P.C. must come into effect. It follows therefore that the money claim in the suit has to be limited to Rs. 729 plus a moiety of the same on the date of the suit. The moiety representing interest will carry future interest at the rate stipulated in Ext. A. To this extent the appeal is allowed and the decree relating to the money claim is modified.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.