AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Judge has found, and his finding is not disputed before us, that there was a genuine and unconditional offer by the agent of the mortgagor to
pay the mortgagee the amount due to him. The agent had the money with him. The mortgagee refused to receive the amount that was so tendered.
u/s 84 of the-Indian Transfer of Property Act interest on the principal money shall cease to run from the date of the tender, and the Judge has
disallowed interest from such date. It is contended before us that it is proved in this case that the money tendered to the Mortgagee was received
from a, person who had agreed to purchase the property from the mortgagor after redemption and as he received back his money after the
mortgagee refused '' to accept the tender, it cannot be, said that the plaintiff, mortgagor, from the date always kept the money ready for payment
and that, therefore, the interest must run on and the cases of Gyles v. Hall 2 P.W. 378; Satyabadi Behara v. Musammat Harabati 5 C.L.J. 192 and
Jagat Tarini Dasi v. Naba Gopal Chuki 5 C.L.J. 270 are relied upon.
We are bound by the terms of Section 84'' of the Transfer of Property Act, and, as already pointed out, under that section, interest shall cease
from the date of tender"". The word tender does not in itself imply that he must have been always ready to pay the money. It is not alleged in this
case that there was a subsequent demand by the mortgagee for the amount and that the mortgagor failed to pay. We, therefore, think the Judge is
right in disallowing interest and we dismiss the appeal with costs.