- (1.)We think we are bound by the Privy Council decisions in Mathura Das v. Raja Narondra Bahadur (1896) I.L.R. 19 A 39 : 6 M.L.J. 214, and Bindersi Nails v. Ganga Saran Sahu (1897) I.L.R. 20 A. 171 and the decisions of this Court in Ghantayya v. Papayya (1899) I.L.R. 23 M. 534 and Bamanathan Ghetty v. Nur Muhammad Marakkayar (1900) 11 M.L.J. 183 to hold that post diem interest is payable on the general promise by the debtor to be liable for interest though a definite term is fixed in the bond for re-payment of the principal and interest. If the liability under that general undertaking to pay interest is further extended by another under taking, (which may be called appurtenant to the principal undertaking) to pay interest upon arrears of interest and which further undertaking is found in the same document following the provision to pay interest it is difficult to hold that the parties intended that only the principal undertaking should apply to the question of the liability for post diem interest and not the appurtenant undertaking also.
(2.)As regards Chajmal Das v. Brij Bukanlal (1895) I.L.R. 17 All. 511 (P.C.) that was decided before Mathuri Das v. Raja Narindra Bahadur (1896) I.L.R. 19 All. 39 and their Lordships, after reluctantly agreeing with the High Court that there was no covenant to pay post diem interest gave interest by way of damages taking the principal undertaking alone as a guide for the measure of damages and not the appurtenant undertaking also. Thathothathil Pokkar v. Ramachandra Shenoy (1914) 16 M.L.T. 478 is a similar case. These decisions are of no assistance when considering the question as to whether compound interest is allowable where post diem interest is granted on the covenant and not as damages in the absence of a covenant. On the other hand, the decisions in Bindesri Naik v. Ganga Saran Sahu (1897) I.L.R. 20 All. 171 (P.C.) and Ramanathan Ghetty v. Nur Muhammtd Marakkayar (1900) 11 M.L.J. 183 (F.B.) proceed on the view that both the covenants can be availed of by the creditor in respect of post diem interest.
(3.)We therefore allow the second appeal and restore the decision of the District Munsif dismissing with costs the defendants appeal to the lower appellate court. The respondents will pay appellant s costs in this Court. Six months time will be allowed for payment from this date.