SBAIK RAJIYA BIBI Vs. SBAIK MOULA SAHEB
LAWS(APH)-1969-12-23
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 17,1969

SBAIK RAJIYA BIBI Appellant
VERSUS
SBAIK MOULA SAHEB Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

A. VS. B [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BONDA APPARAO VS. VISWESWARUDU [LAWS(APH)-1980-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD VS. M/S WESTERN FOOT WEAR MART, SECUNDERABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1975-1-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O. S. 23/47 In that suit a decree was passed for possession and for profits! In pursuat noe of that decree she applied in I. A. 831/59 for determination of mesne profits and for passing a final decree. On 6-12-1960 a decree was passed to the effect that "the petitioner do recover from the respondents a sum of Rs. 6, 486-91 paise towards mesne profits for the years 1947 to 1959 with interest thereon at 5% from this date till the date of realisation of the said sum"-The appeal A. S. 34/61 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ongole, was dismissed. The respondents herein filed a petition, I. A, 1347/67, to amend the decree by deleting the portion of the decree relating to interest from the date of decree till the date of realisation on the ground that it was ot in consonance with the judgment which had not provided for such interest. The Court below accepted their contention and ordered the amendment. The revision petition is filed against the said order.
(2.)It is contended by Mr. Manohar on behalf of the petitioner that there is no necessity to mention in the Judgment that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount decreed from the date of decree to the date of realisation and inspite of the absence of any such provision the decree can provide for the same. He referred to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure which states that
"Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree ......with further interest at auch rate not exceeding six percent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of pay. ment............",

(3.)It is clear from this provision that the Court may provide lor subsequent interest in the decree. If the Judgment also is to contain such provision there is no necessity to have a provision like Section 34. This view finds support in the decision in Ramamurty V. Ravi Narasimham.(1) wherein a similar contention that as there was no provision for payment of interest in the Judgment it ought not to have been included in the decree was negatived as being without much substance. Another decision to which my attention was drawn is Kolai Ram V. Palai Ram (2) where it was held that in a case where a judgment adjudged interest to be paid only for the period prior to the suit and the decree in addition directed payment of interest from the date of the suit onwards there was no variance between the judgment and the decree, In view of these decisions, it is clear that the provision made in the decree was quite proper. The Court below distinguished the decision first cited on the ground that the said decision related to a case of a promissory note whereas the present one is one relating to payment of mesne profits. As long as there is a decree for payment of money, I do not see any distinction in principle between a decree on the foot of a promissory note or a decree for mesne profits.
;


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