Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) THIS is a Defendant's second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 9000/ -paid as advance towards the price of a tractor for the supply of which an order was placed by the Plaintiff on the Defendants; and Rs. 2130/ -as interest thereon.
(2.) THE trial court decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 9000/ -, but dismissed the claim for interest. The appeal by the Defendants was dismissed by the lower appellate court, but the Plaintiff's cross -objection was allowed and the suit was decreed for the recovery of Rs. 11,130/ -with pendente lite and future interest. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Appellants, I find that there is no merit what -so -over in the appeal. The Defendants case has been disbelieved by the two courts below and it has been found that Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 did receive the amount of Rs. 3000/ -on 4th May, 1967 and the amount of Rs. 6000/ -on 9th October, 1967 from the Plaintiff against his order for the supply of the tractor. The Defendants' case that the person who received the money, namely, Om Prakash was not authorised to do so or that the money was not received by Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 has not been accepted by the two courts below. This appeal is concluded by findings of fact. Learned Counsel urged that there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff has advanced the amount of Rs. 9000/ -. The argument is on the face of it incorrect. The evidence in support of the finding is fully recited in the judgments of the two courts below. It is not suggested that there has been any misreading of the evidence. Learned Counsel then tried to urge that the Plaintiff has not been able to sufficiently prove that the sum of Rs. 9000/ -was advanced. That point relates to the appraisal of evidence and cannot be entertained. Lastly the Learned Counsel urged that the award of interest was not justified. He relied on the case of Sagar Mal Poddar v. Amir, AIR 1965 All 103 wherein it has been said that the Court cannot grant damages by way of interest in absence of a contrast, usage or custom. That may be so, but the award of interest in this case was not based on Section 73 of the Contract Act. The lower appellate court has in awarding interest relied on Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act. The amount in this case was paid as advance towards the price of the tractor, and Section 61(2)(b) of the Sale of Goods Act clearly contemplates the award of interest to the buyer in a suit by him for the refund of the price in a case of breach of contract on the part of the seller, from the date on which the payment was made at such rate as the court thinks fit; and thus the court is authorised to award interest in the absence of any contract to the contrary.
(3.) IN the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.;