AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Newbould J.
In this case the same point arises as arose in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 2281 of 1918, which we have just decided. This is a suit on a mortgage-bond in which the plaintiffs have been granted a decree at a rate of interest less than the contractual rate because the Courts have held that rate to be excessive. In support of the decision of the lower Courts the learned Pleader for the respondents relied on the decision of a Bench of this Court in Krishna charan Barman v. Sawi Kumar Das 34 Ind. Cs. 609 : 44 C. 162 : 25 C.L.J. 24 : 21 C.W.N. 740. But since that decision there have been two decision of the Privy Council in the cases of Aziz Khan v. Duni chand 48 Ind. Cas. 933 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 165 P.W.R. 1918 : 101 P.R. 1918 (P.C.) and Balla Mal v. Ahad Shah 48 Ind. Cas. 1 : 23 C.W.N. 233 : 35 M.L.J. 614 : 16 A.L.J. 905 : 124 P.R. 1918 : 25 M.L.T. 55 : 180 P.W.R. 1918 : 29 C.L.J. 165 : 1 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 25 : 21 Bom. L.R. 558 (P.C.) and there has also been a decision of this Court in Bejoy Kumar Addya v. Satish chandra Ghose 56 Ind. Cas. 1007 : 24 C.W.N. 444. Having regard to these decisions, we think that a mere finding that the rate of interest in the bond is excessive is not sufficient reason for refusing the plaintiffs a decree at the rate of interest embodied in the contract. We accordingly decree this appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower Courts and grant the plaintiffs a decree for the full amount of their claim with costs in all the Courts.
Bucland, J.
I concur.