Judgment :- 1. The 3rd defendant in a suit for realisation of money secured by an equitable mortgage filed by a Bank (which now is a nationalised one) is the appellant. The court below has passed a preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged properties plaint. A schedule properties for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,46,643-24 with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 1,25,000/ - at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and also for costs of the suit The only relief which the 3rd defendant prays for is payment of the decree amount in instalments as she is entitled to being an agriculturist under S.4 (3) read with the proviso to clause (1) of S.2 (4) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act (shortly stated the Act). However the time fixed as per the Act for payment of these instalments are already over. The appeal as such have become infructuous. Hence it is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs. 2. However, we have to deal with the Cross Objections filed by the Bank in the matter. The contentions raised by the Bank are: (i) the principal amount sued on is Rs. 1,39,130-03 and not on R. 1,25,000/-as erroneously assumed by the court below; (ii) even assuming that the 3rd defendant is entitled to take advantage of S.5 (2) of the Act the lower court ought to have allowed interest at 91/2% per annum, the contract rate till 14 7 70 and thereafter at 1% per annum till date of preliminary decree namely 5 4 72; (iii) the court below erred in not allowing interest on the insurance premia paid pending suit; (iv) The court below should have allowed future interest at 6% per annum on the whole of the principal amount namely Rs. 1,39,130-03 plus R.6, 081-31 (insurance premia paid pending suit). 3. In regard to the first question what is the principal amount sued on Mr. T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the respondent-bank pointed out that as per the agreement between the parties the interest that has accrued due at the end of the quarter is added on to the principal and becomes the principal and never thereafter ceases to be the principal. It is on this basis that the principal was shown as Rs. 1,39,130-03 at the time of filing the suit. It is on this basis that the principal was shown as Rs. 1,39,130-03 at the time of filing the suit. It Was contended that this method of calculating the principal is perfectly legal and we were referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Thandamma v. Puthencol Iype (AIR. 1962 Ker. 235) wherein the following passage from the English case in Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Holder (1931-2 K.B., 81) was quoted with approval: "I am therefore of opinion that having regard to the method in which, with the concurrence of the company the account was kept by the Bank, the company must be deemed to have paid each half year the accruing interest by means of an advance made for that purpose by the Bank to the company". 4. Mr. Mohammed, counsel for the appellant-debtor pointed out that in view of the definition of the word "principal" in the Act, the above mentioned decision could have no application here. The word "principal" has been defined in the Act as: "the amount originally advanced, together with such sum, if any, as has been subsequently advanced, notwithstanding any stipulation to treat any interests as principal and notwithstanding that the debt has been renewed or included in a fresh document, whether by the same debtor or by his heirs, legal representatives or assigns or by any other person acting on his behalf in his interest, and whether in favour of the same creditor or his heirs, legal representatives or assigns or of any other person acting on his behalf or in his interest"! It might be noted that in AIR. 1962 Ker. 235 (cited supra) itself it is pointed out in para 7 of the judgment: "We may, in passing refer to the definition of the term 'principal' in the Kerala Agriculturist Debt Relief Act 1958, wherein it is specifically provided that the 'principal' means the amount originally advanced together with sum, if any. as has been subsequently advanced, notwithstanding any stipulation to treat any interest as principal. There is no such definition of the term 'principal' in the T. C. Act 1956, and no reliance has been placed on Act XXXI of 1958 by the appellants". Therefore, it is doubtful that in cases where the Kerala Act is applicable principal could be calculated in the manner accepted in Thandamma's case. There is no such definition of the term 'principal' in the T. C. Act 1956, and no reliance has been placed on Act XXXI of 1958 by the appellants". Therefore, it is doubtful that in cases where the Kerala Act is applicable principal could be calculated in the manner accepted in Thandamma's case. However it is not necessary for us to resolve this question here because debt as defined in the Act will not take-in any debt exceeding three thousand rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company though the agriculturist debtor shall be entitled to repay the debt in 8 equal half yearly instalments. Therefore, in this case Sri. Viswanatha Iyer's argument will have to be accepted and the principal fixed as contended for by the respondent-bank. 5. The rate of interest is fixed by the trial court at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till realisation. Mr. Viswanatha Iyer's argument that even on the basis of S.5(2) of the Act, interest should have been awarded on the principal from date of suit till the Act came into force at 91/2 % per annum and at 7% from date of Act to date of preliminary decree. We have no hesitation in accepting this contention. S.5(2) only fixes 7% interest if it is less than the contract rate with effect on and from the commencement of this Act. We might state that really the appellant here is not entitled to take advantage of the provision in S.5(2), because it is specifically provided in S.2(4)(1) that the provisions of S.5 shall not be applicable to a debt exceeding three thousand rupees. However the bank claims interest from the date of Act to date of decree only at 1 %. Mr. Mohammed urged that it will not be proper for this court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below in fixing the interest under S.34. However the bank claims interest from the date of Act to date of decree only at 1 %. Mr. Mohammed urged that it will not be proper for this court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below in fixing the interest under S.34. S.34 is as follows: "(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, (with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the court deems reasonable on such principal sum), from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest (on such principal sum) from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie." It is true that award of interest under S.34 after the date of suit is entirely in the discretion of the court see AIR. 1961 S.C. 990, AIR. 1941 P.C. 61 and AIR. 1931 P.C.104. 6. No doubt as in the case of discretion in all cases exercised by a court, the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. However, this general provision regarding fixation of interest could have no application in the case of mortgage suits where there is a particular provision in 0.34 regarding fixation of interest after date of suit. As stated by Lord Phillimore in Jagannath Prasad Singh v. Surajmul Jalal (AIR. 1927 P. C.1) the fixation of interest in mortgage suit is determined beyond question by 0.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This may, as in this case, differ from the general provision of S.34 of the Code. The particular avoids the general. As stated by Lord Phillimore in Jagannath Prasad Singh v. Surajmul Jalal (AIR. 1927 P. C.1) the fixation of interest in mortgage suit is determined beyond question by 0.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This may, as in this case, differ from the general provision of S.34 of the Code. The particular avoids the general. This is made clear by the following further passage in that judgment: "That is very well paraphrased by Lord Davey in delivering the judgment of the Board in the case of Rani Sundar Koer v. Rai Sham Krishen (1907 341A. 9); at page 21 he says: "Their Lordships have no hesitation in expressing their concurrence with the High court of Calcutta, not only in allowing interest after the fixed day, but also in allowing interest at the court rate and not at the mortgage rate. They think that the scheme and intention of the Transfer of Property Act was that a general account should be taken once for all, and an aggregate amount be stated in the decree for principal, interest and costs due on a fixed day, and that after the expiration of that day, if the property should not be redeemed, the matter should pass from the domain of contract to that of judgment, and the rights of the mortgagee should thenceforth depend, not on the contents of his bond, but on the directions in the decree." Up to this point, till the period for redemption has expired the matter remains in contract and the interest has to be paid at the rate and with the costs specified in the mortgage. Therefore, interest as claimed in the Cross Objection has also to be allowed. 7. We are also of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the insurance premium pending suit under S.72 of the T. P. Act which provides that a mortgagee may spend such money as is necessary for the preservation of the mortgaged property from destruction and may add such money to the principal money, in the absence of a contract to the contrary. It might be noted that the lower court has already and correctly found that the claim additionally incorporated in the plaint by amendment from time to time amounting to Rs. It might be noted that the lower court has already and correctly found that the claim additionally incorporated in the plaint by amendment from time to time amounting to Rs. 6,081-31 on account of premia paid to insure the properties is a charge liable to be enforced and realised from the hypothecated properties and defendants. Therefore, we allow the Cross Objections with costs.