AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We think we are bound by the Privy Council decisions in Mathura Das v. Raja Narondra Bahadur ILR (1896) A 39 : 6 M.L.J. 214 and
Bindersi Nails v. Ganga Saran Sahu ILR (1897) A. 171 and the decisions of this Court in Ghantayya v. Papayya ILR (1899) M. 534 and
Bamanathan Ghetty v. Nur Muhammad Marakkayar (1900) 11 M.L.J. 183 to hold that post diem interest is payable on the general promise by
the debtor to be liable for interest though a definite term is fixed in the bond for re-payment of the principal and interest. If the liability under that
general undertaking to pay interest is further extended by another under taking, (which may be called appurtenant to the principal undertaking) to
pay interest upon arrears of interest and which further undertaking is found in the same document following the provision to pay interest it is difficult
to hold that the parties intended that only the principal undertaking should apply to the question of the liability for post diem interest and not the
appurtenant undertaking also.
As regards Chajmal Das v. Brij Bukanlal ILR (1895) All. 511 that was decided before Mathuri Das v. Raja Narindra Bahadur ILR (1896) All.
39 and their Lordships, after reluctantly agreeing with the High Court that there was no covenant to pay post diem interest gave interest by way of
damages taking the principal undertaking alone as a guide for the measure of damages and not the appurtenant undertaking also. Thathothathil
Pokkar v. Ramachandra Shenoy (1914) 16 M.L.T. 478 is a similar case. These decisions are of no assistance when considering the question as to
whether compound interest is allowable where post diem interest is granted on the covenant and not as damages in the absence of a covenant. On
the other hand, the decisions in Bindesri Naik v. Ganga Saran Sahu ILR (1897) All. 171 and Ramanathan Ghetty v. Nur Muhammtd Marakkayar
(1900) 11 M.L.J. 183 proceed on the view that both the covenants can be availed of by the creditor in respect of post diem interest.
We therefore allow the second appeal and restore the decision of the District Munsif dismissing with costs the defendants'' appeal to the lower
appellate court. The respondents will pay appellant''s costs in this Court. Six months time will be allowed for payment from this date.