SANT RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. NAND LALL
LAWS(P&H)-1954-12-8
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 17,1954

Sant Ram And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Nand Lall Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Mehar Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a first appeal by plaintiffs Sant Ram and Naurata Ram from the judgment and decree, dated 21 -9 -1950, of the District Judge at Patiala.
(2.) THE plaintiffs brought a suit against Nand Lal defendant for recovery of Rs. 10,277/15/ - on the foot of a bond, Ex. PA, dated 3rd Assauj 2008 Bk. The bond was for the amount of Rs. 7,500/ -, payable in annual instalments of Rs. 400/ - on 1st Besakh of each year. The first instalment was due on 1st Besakh, 2007 Bk. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant made a default in the payment of the first instalment, and thus they became entitled, under the terms of the bond, to the immediate realisation of the total sum of Rs. 7500/ - plus Rs. 2,200/ -, the amount of the interest that had been given up at the time of the execution of the bond, plus Rs. 577/15/ - as interest from the date of the bond to the date of the suit. The defendant admitted execution of the bond, but pleaded (a) that the amount of the bond was made up of compound interest, (b) that there had been no default in the payment of the first instalment, as he had made the offer on due date, which offer was not accepted by the plaintiffs, (c) that there was no condition in the bond for realisation of the remaining amount as 'lump sum' on default of an instalment, (d) that the claim' for Rs. 2,200/ - and interest from the date of the bond to the date of the suit is penal and should be relieved against, and (e) that in any case he should be given the benefit of instalment in the decree. 2A. The learned District Judge found that the amount of the bond was to some extent at least made up of compound interest, that the story of the defendant that the amount of the first instalment was offered on due date is not believable, that the claim for Rs. 2,200/ - and interest from the date of the bond to the date of the suit is penal, and that under the terms of the bond the whole sum did not become due at once on default of the first instalment. The first instalment had in fact been offered on 24th Besakh, 2007 Bk. Therefore, the learned District Judge granted a decree to the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery, of Rs. 400/ - of the first instalment with interest at the stipulated rate of thirteen annas per cent, per mensem from 1st to 24th Besakh, 2007 Bk., with the direction that the remaining instalments shall continue to be paid on due dates and in the event of default interest would be chargeable at the stipulated rate. He disallowed the claim of the plaintiffs for the amount of Rs. 2,200/ - and interest from the date of the bond to the 1st Besakh, 2007 Bk. In this appeal the plaintiffs have made three claims: (a) for the amount of Rs. 2,200/ -, (b) for the amount of Rs. 577/5/ - as the amount of interest from the date of the bond, and (c) payment of the original amount of Rs. 7,500/ - not by instalments but 'lump sum'.
(3.) THE plaintiffs have paid court -fee correctly with regard to the first two claims and as to the third claim they have paid a court -fee of Rs. 10/ -. There is a preliminary objection by the Learned Counsel for the defendant that in the third claim of the plaintiffs payment of the court -fee is not proper. He contends that according to Art. 1 of Sch. 1, Court -fees Act and S. 16 of that Act the plaintiffs should pay court -fee with regard to the third relief upon the difference between the value of the relief they claim to be entitled to and that granted by the decree appealed against, and in this behalf reliance is placed on - Lukhun Chunder v. Khoda Buksh',, 19 Cal 272 (A); - 'Gobind Lal v. Rao Baldeo Singh',, AIR 1914 Lah 390 (B); - 'Agha Sher Md. Khan Zamanuddin v. Haji Fazal Hahi Gurwara',, AIR 1936 Pesh 232 (C) and - 'Zainul Abdin v. Emperor',, AIR 1931 Pesh 30 (D). All these cases support the contention of the Learned Counsel, and no case to the contrary has been referred to by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. All the cases cited were cases in which the decree was for instalments and in appeal the claim was for 'lump sum' amount. The method of calculation of difference between the relief claimed by the appellant in appeal in such, cases and the value of the decree adopted is that interest, at the agreed rate or in the absence of such rate at the Court rate of six per cent, per annum, is calculated upon each instalment from the date of the decree to the date it becomes due and payable. The total amount of interest thus calculated is deducted from the amount claimed by the appellant and the amount remaining is the present value of the decree. In the present case the amount of interest on the instalments at the stipulated rate of thirteen annas per cent, per mensem comes to Rs. 6,669/ - and this amount deducted from the lump sum' amount of Rs. 7,500/ - claimed by the plaintiffs leaves a remainder of Rs. 831/ -. So that the present value of the instalment decree to the plaintiffs is Rs. 831/ - and the relief claimed by them is payment of a 'lump sum' of Rs. 7,500/ -, the difference between the two conies to Rs. 6,669/ -, and court -fee payable upon this amount, after allowance for the court -fee of Rs. 248/8/ - already paid on all the reliefs is Rs. 434/ -, which is to be paid by them to make up the deficiency in the court -fee stamp. They have paid this amount in Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.