LAWS(PVC)-1917-3-22

ATIKULLA MUNSHI; AZIMUDDIN HAJI Vs. AZIMUDDIN HAJI; ATIKULLA MUNSHI

Decided On March 19, 1917
ATIKULLA MUNSHI; AZIMUDDIN HAJI Appellant
V/S
AZIMUDDIN HAJI; ATIKULLA MUNSHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Newbould raises a point which is somewhat out of the ordinary.

(2.) I do not suppose that the decision that I am about to give will be a precedent in other cases, because I imagine that the particular form of the contract in the present case is not a usual one. The borrower of Rs. 550 entered into an agreement dated the 10th of Kartick 1315, reciting that he borrowed on that day Rs. 550 ?for the purpose of purchasing hide within the month of Magh of the current year which is the period fixed for repayment." Then instead of undertaking to repay the money, the method of repayment was as follows: I shall pay off by 550 maunds of dried autumnal paddy by weighing them on the same day, at the rate of one maund per rupee, and T shall have it entered on the back of this deed;" so that, the method of repayment; was by delivery of certain paddy which is to be 550 maunds at the rate of one maund per rupee. Then the borrower said: "if I fail to pay the paddy I shall be liable to make good the gain which would accrue to you by purchase and sale with the said money.

(3.) Now, the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that this was really a subtle device for the purpose of evading the provisions of Regulation III of 1872, a Regulation for the peace and good government of the territory known as the Sonthal Pergannas. He based this conclusion on the fact that it was proved that the price of pady in Magh 1315 was Rs. 2 per maund, i.e., the sum repayable was Rs. 1,100, the result being that the Rs. 550 was to double itself in three months. I think that is a conclusion which he was justified in coming to upon the terms of this agreement. It was in effect an agreement to repay the principal sum which was. borrowed and interest at the rate of 100 per cent, on the date of repayment, namely, Magh 1335. Having come to the conclusion that it was a device to evade the Regulation, what is the result ?