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
7 paragraphs · 152 wordsAs regards the question of interest we think the appellants were not entitled to any interest before the filing of the plaint as there was no
agreement to pay interest and no demand in writing to bring the case within the provisions of the Interest Act. On this point, we are not prepared to
differ from the decision in Kamalammal v. Peeru Meet a Levvai Rowthen ILR (1897) M. 481. As regards the recent case of Saunadanappa v.
Shivbasawa ILR (1907) B. 354 which awarded interest on the ground that the parties were Hindus and that it was according to Hindu usage to
pay interest in such cases, it has been settled in this Court, ever since the case of Annaji Rau v. Ragubat (1871) 6 M.H.C.R. 400 that Hindu law is
not binding in such matters as the payment of interest.
The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.