AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 358 wordsMadhavan Nair, J.—The plaintiff is the petitioner. The plaintiff''s suit was to recover principal and interest on account of dealings carried on
between him and the defendant from the 22nd May 1916 to the 10th of December 1922. The plaintiff has been given a decree for Rs. 196 but he
has not been awarded interest on that amount. The question in this case is whether the lower Court was wrong in refusing ''interest'' to the
petitioner. Interest is claimed under the Interest Act and on general principles of law.
In view of the finding that there was no demand for interest by the plaintiff, the plea that he is entitled to interest under the interest Act cannot be
accepted.
The next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on general principles of law. It is well-known that under the rules of English
Common Law, interest is not due on money, unless interest was intended to be paid or unless it is implied from the usage of trade, as in the case of
mercantile instruments. Applying this principle, the petitioner is not entitled to interest in this case because the learned Judge in para. 4 finds that the
parties commenced dealings on the assumption that no interest would be demanded. This finding that interest was not intended to be paid is
supported by the evidence of D.W. No. 1. Accepting this finding, I am of opinion that plaintiff is not entitled to interest even under the general
principles of the Common Law.
The decision in Muhammad Abdul Gaffur Rowther v. Hamida Beevi Ammal 52 Ind. Cas. 505 (1919) M.W.N. 484 : 25 M.L.T. 242 : 36
M.L.J. 456 and Arunachalam Chettiar v. Rajeswara Setupati 71 Ind. Cas. 257 : 15 L.W. 63 are inapplicable to the present case, inasmuch as it
has been found that interest was not intended to be charged, when the parties commenced their dealings. I may also mention that interest has not
been claimed, based on the usage of trade.
I think, therefore, that the decision of the lower Court is right. I dismiss this revision, petition with costs.