BITLA RAJALINGAM AND SONS AND ANR. Vs. C.P.V. KOTIAH CHETTI AND CO. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants. The respondents, a partnership firm in the City of Madras doing business as commission agents brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for recovery of sum of Rs. 11000 odd as balanced due on dealings. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellants (defendants) were upcountry merchants who were consigning their goods to the City of Madras for being sold by the respondents, and such dealings were carried on during the period January 1950 to March 1953. The account between the parties was described in the plaint as a mutual, open and current account, and the last dealing is said to have taken place on 9 -3 -1953. The account year between the parties was the calendar year and hence it was alleged in the plaint that the suit was not barred by limitation since it was brought within three years from 31 -12 -1953, the end of the calendar year in which the last transaction took place.

(2.) MR . Subramaniam for the appellants confined his arguments to two points, though a number of grounds have been taken in the memorandum of appeal. The first is that the decree of the lower court allowing interest at 12 per cent per annum on the sum found due from the date of plaint till the date of payment was opposed to law in that the lower court had no jurisdiction to award interest at more than 6 per cent after the date of the decree. It is true that the Civil procedure Code gives discretion to the trial court in the matter of interest for the period from the date of plaint till the date of decree. Section 34 C.P.C., permits the civil court to award interest on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of suit to the date of the decree at such rate as the court deems reasonable. By an amendment of S. 34 the discretion of the court to grant interests at any reasonable rate for the period subsequent to the date of the decree was limited to six per cent by the Central Act 66 of 1956. The decree in this case was granted by the learned Judge in the City Civil Court on 28 -2 -1958. He was therefore bound to provide interest after the date of the decree only at six per cent. The award of interest at 12 per cent, after the date of the decree is therefore illegal and the decree will be modified by providing interest at six per cent from the date of the decree. For the interim period during the pendency of the suit. Mr. Subramanian urged that interest should also be allowed at six per cent.

(3.) HOWEVER we have to notice the argument of Mr. Subramaniam that the transaction which took place on 9 -3 -1953 by sale of 95 bags of chillis belonging to the defendants by the receiver appointed by this court in C. S. 158 of 1952 was really not transaction between the parties which should be taken as an entry in the mutual account. Mr. Subramaniam argues that after the suit for dissolution of partnership was filed by a partner the receiver appointed by the court to carry on the business pending the suit could not be deemed to have carried on the business and any transaction entered into by the receiver should not be viewed as a business transaction of the partnership. In our opinion this argument cannot be accepted because by the preliminary decree passed in the case the partnership was declared to be dissolved only on the date of the preliminary decree, i.e., 9th April 1954. The receiver was in charge of the business admittedly till April 1954 when the preliminary decree was passed. Till then the receiver was carrying on business under the orders of the court. Could it be said under the circumstances that the carrying on of business by the receiver pending the suit for dissolution of partnership was not carrying on of the business of the partnership.