JUDGMENT C.B. Capoor, J. - This appeal has been preferred by Manohar Lal defendant No. 1 to a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent against him and his son Kailash Nath for recovery of a sum of Rs. 904/14/6 as principal and Rs. 316/'12/6 as interest on account of the price of goods supplied. During the pendency of the suit Manohar Lal died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 2. The allegations made by the plaintiff respondent were that Manohar Lal and Kailash Nath constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara branch of Hindu Law and that Kailash Nath had purchased goods from the plaintiff firm for purposes of joint family business. 3. The suit was resisted by Manohar Lal and Kailash Nath mainly on the grounds that they did not purchase any goods from the plaintiff firm and in any case, were not liable to pay interest. 4. The courts below reached the conclusion that articles were purchased from the plaintiff firm and that both the defendants were liable to pay price thereof. That is a finding of fact and cannot be questioned in second appeal. 5. The trial court did not award any interest but on appeal the learned lower appellate court decreed the claim for interest also. 6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned lower appellate court erred in awarding interest and that sub-Sec. (2) of Section 61 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act on which the said court relied was subject to the provisions of sub-Sec. (1) of Section 61 which subsection provided that interest could be recoverable only if there was a law providing for the award of interest. I am, however, unable to accede to that contention. Section 61 referred to above reads as below: "(1) Nothing in the Act shall affect the right of the seller or the buyer to recover interest or special damages in any case where by law interest or special damages may be recoverable, or to recover the money paid where the consideration for the payment of it has failed. Section 61 referred to above reads as below: "(1) Nothing in the Act shall affect the right of the seller or the buyer to recover interest or special damages in any case where by law interest or special damages may be recoverable, or to recover the money paid where the consideration for the payment of it has failed. (2) In the absence of a contract to the contrary the Court may award interest at such rate as it thinks fit on the amount of the price- (a) to the seller in a suit by him for the amount of the price-from the date of the tender of the goods or from the date on which the price was payable; (b) to the buyer in a suit by him for the refund of the price in a case of a breach of the contract on the part of the seller--from the date on which the payment was made." 7. It will have been noticed that sub-Sec. (1) is in the nature of a saving section. It saves and preserves the right of a seller or a buyer to recover interest in a case where interest is recoverable under a law. There is nothing in Section 61 to indicate that sub-Sec. (2) was in the nature of an exception or proviso to sub-Sec. (1) or that the former is subject to the latter. 8. The expression "in the absence of a contract to the contrary" as used in sub-Sec. (2) indicates that if there is no contract between the parties for the payment of interest the provisions of the sub-section will come into play and be attracted. In other words, if there is no agreement between the parties for the payment of interest, it will be open to the court to award interest at a rate which it considers to be fit and proper. Clause (a) of the aforesaid subsection indicates the date from which interest can be made to run in a case filed by the seller and Cl. (b) indicates the date from which interest can be awarded in a suit filed by the buyer. 9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that a contract to the contrary within the meaning of sub-section (2) is a contract restricted to the rate of interest and to the period of time from which the interest is to be awarded. 9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that a contract to the contrary within the meaning of sub-section (2) is a contract restricted to the rate of interest and to the period of time from which the interest is to be awarded. The contention, in my opinion, is devoid of substance. First of all, if there is an agreement for the payment of interest, the rate of interest is usually indicated and agreed upon. Unless there is a statute providing for the payment of interest at a paricularate on a particular transaction, it is rarely, if at all, that even though there be an agreement for the payment of interest the rate of interest may not be mentioned. Secondly, there does not appear to be any justification for restricting the scope and ambit of the expression "contract to the contrary" to merely the rate of interest and the date from which interest is to run. If the intention of the Legislature had been to use the aforesaid expression in the restricted sense contended for on behalf of the appellant, the opening words of sub-Sec. (2) would have run somewhat as below: "In the absence of a contract to the contrary as to the rate of interest and as to the date from which interest is to run the court may award interest at such rate as it thinks fit on the amount of the price- (a) (as in the section). (b) (as in the section) 10. The intention of the Legislature in enacting sub-Sec. (2) clearly appears to have been that if there is no contract between the parties that interest shall not run, it will be within the competence of the court to award interest at a rate which it considers to be proper and from the date indicated in clauses (a) and (b). In order to assure oneself of the intention of the Legislature reference may usefully be made to the report of the Select Committee on the Indian Sale of Goods Bill (No. 11 of 1929). The note appended by the Special Committee on Cl. 61 of the bill is as follows: "Sub-Cl. (1) of this clause follows Section 54 of the English Act. Sub-Cl. 2 (a) follows the Scottish Law embodied in Section 49(3) of the English Act. Sub-Cl. (2) (b) is new. The note appended by the Special Committee on Cl. 61 of the bill is as follows: "Sub-Cl. (1) of this clause follows Section 54 of the English Act. Sub-Cl. 2 (a) follows the Scottish Law embodied in Section 49(3) of the English Act. Sub-Cl. (2) (b) is new. There was a considerable conflict of opinion in India on the question whether interest can be claimed by way of damages on a breach of contract or on the price (Pollack and Mulla on The Indian Sale of Goods Act page 412). In a recent Full Bench case in Madras the majority of the court held that a person who has advanced money to another for the supply of goods is not entitled to get interest on the amounts advanced if the seller makes default in performing the contract. Ramesam, J. however, dissented from the above view and was of the opinion that interest could be awarded as damages under Section 73 of the Indian Act. Kundappa v. Muthu Swami. I.L.R. 50 Mad. 94 We think it is desirable to make a specific provision for interest. The A general rule of English Law is that damages for the detention of a debt are merely nominal and that in an action for the price of the goods sold interest is not recoverable, but the Scottish Law as embodied in Section 49(3) of the English Act allows interest to the seller. There is no express provision either in English or Indian Law for the payment of interest to the buyer suing for the refund of the price. In our opinion, the buyer should get interest in such' a case, and we have, therefore, included a provision to that effect in sub-clause 2 (b). In our opinion, interest on damages should not be awarded. We have, therefore, made no provision in that behalf." 11. It is not usual to refer to commentaries, but as the commentary on the Indian Sale of Goods Act by Pollack and Mulla is a standard commentary, it will not be out of place to mention that according to those commentators also, the intention of the Legislature was as indicated in this judgment. (Vide Indian Sale of Goods Act by Pollack and Mulla, 1933 Edition, pp. 333 and 334). 12. The learned lower appellate court was thus right in awarding interest. 13. (Vide Indian Sale of Goods Act by Pollack and Mulla, 1933 Edition, pp. 333 and 334). 12. The learned lower appellate court was thus right in awarding interest. 13. The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed with costs.