BALAKRISHNA. J. ( 1 ) THE material facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : the petitioner is the owner in possession of plot No. 1 having a plinth area of 3000 square feet in Mehaboob Gulshan layout, Udayanagar, Raichur Town. For the purpose of construction of a house on the site the petitioner applied for a loan to the 4th respondent and the same was granted to the tune of Rs. 20 000/ by the 4th respondent. On the recommendation of the 4th respondent, the third respondent released the sum of rs. 20,000/- and the same to be granted as a loan to the petitioner by the 4th respondent. The petitioner mortgaged the site to the 4th respondent in lieu of the loan. Since the loan was not repaid in spite of repeated reminders and demand, in the year 1973-74, the third respondent impleading the petitioner and the 4th respondent as necessary and proper parties, raised a dispute under section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the 2nd respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner remained exparte and an exparte award came to be passed on 2-9-1974 fora sum of Rs. 24. 981-56 with future interest payable at the rateof 10 1/2% per annum. The petitioner accepted the award and deposited some amount with interest from time to time upto 19-11-1984. The total amount deposited or repaid by the petitioner, according to the petitioner, is Rs. 38,972-50 P. which excludes the share amount and the amount of Rs. 1,789-82 P. which was paid earlier to the passing of the award. According to the petitioner, he has paid an amount of Rs. 3200/- which is in excess of what wss actually due to the 3rd and 4th respondent, in o'der to satisfy the award. Thereafter, first respondent served a notice proclaiming safe of the entire house belonging to the petitioner which, according to the petitioner, is of the value of Rs. 8 lakhs. The amount said to be due from the petitioner, according to the sale proclamation, is Rs. 17,851-50 P. and the date of sale was 25 9-1987. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed objections together with a statement of accounts showing the amounts paid by him in order to satisfy the award. 8 lakhs. The amount said to be due from the petitioner, according to the sale proclamation, is Rs. 17,851-50 P. and the date of sale was 25 9-1987. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed objections together with a statement of accounts showing the amounts paid by him in order to satisfy the award. The petitioner also brought to the notice of the first respondent, who is the Recovery Officer, that interest cannot be charged at the rate of 10 1/2% per annum and what is to be charged is only 6% per annum in accordance with Section 34 of the C. P. C. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent did not consider the legal issues raised by the petitioner and on 14-9-1987 intimated the petitioner that the entire house would be sold for the purpose of realising the dues out of the sale proceeds. The petitioner goes to the extent of stating that the valuable property was to be sold by the first respondent for a meagre sum of rs. 17. 000/- and odd only. According to the petitioner, he has deposited the loan by making payments in excess of what was actually due. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has questioned the proclamation of sale dated 22-8-1987 issued under Rule 38 (2) (d) of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) issued by the first respondent fixing the date of sale on 25-9-1987 and has sought for the quashing of sale proclamation as also for a mandamus directing the first respondent, after due consideration of the accounts furnished by the petitioner, to refund the sum of Rs. 3,200/- alleged to be in excess of the amounts paid by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for respondent-3 has filed a statement of objections. The salient points in the statement of objections could be summoned up as follows : the petitioner had executed three simple deeds of mortgage duly registered, the first being for a sum of Rs. 4,000. 00, the second being for a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 and the third for another sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 in all amounting to Rs 20,000. 00. 4,000. 00, the second being for a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 and the third for another sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 in all amounting to Rs 20,000. 00. Under each of the mortgage executed in favour of the fourth respondent, the property in question was the subject -matter of the mortgage and one of the terms of mortgage deeds was that the mortgagor shall pay interest at the rate of 7 1/2% per annum on the instalments of loan drawn from time to time in a liberally distributed monthly instalments of Rs. 300/- with a single default clause. The mortgagor was to pay interest at 10 1/2% per annum if dues were not paid as stipulated under the instalments until the amount was fully repaid. The 4th respondent assigned the rights under each of the said mortgage deed to the 3rd respondent According to this respondent, no instalment was ever paid when the instalments became due and there was, therefore the necessity to raises dispute under Section 70 of the Act for recovery of Rs. 24,926-56 P. including interest and over-due interest consequent on non-payment of instalments amounting to Rs 20,000. 00. This sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 included the expenses incurred also. Before the Arbitrator, the petitioner remained exparte and an award was passed. The petitioner appealed against the award in Appeal No. 75 of 1974 before the Karnataka Co-Operative Appellate tribunal and obtained an exparte interim order staying the execution of the award. Finally, the appeal was dismissed by the tribunal on 28-10-1975 for non-prosecution. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the first respondent issued the proclamation of sale notice dated 22-8-1987 for the realisation of the decretal amount. On 27-11-1980, at the time of auction, since there was no bidder and since two days earlier to the date of sale the wife of the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in part payment of the decretal dues with a request to grant more time for clearing the due. the auction was postponed. ( 6 ) THE petitioner paid on 2-4-1981 a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and further sum of Rs. 1000/- on 23-7-1981. Since the petitioner did not subsequently pay the balance amount due, for the second time, a sale notification was issued fixing the date of sale on 25-11-1981 for the purpose 0f recovery of a sum of Rs. ( 6 ) THE petitioner paid on 2-4-1981 a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and further sum of Rs. 1000/- on 23-7-1981. Since the petitioner did not subsequently pay the balance amount due, for the second time, a sale notification was issued fixing the date of sale on 25-11-1981 for the purpose 0f recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,608-99 P. from the petitioner out of sale proceeds. The petitioner was served with the sale notice. ( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner wrote to the third respondent on 14-11-1981 enclosing a cheque for Rs. 3. 650/- undertaking to pay the balance amount in monthly instalments of Rs 750/ and further agreeing to pay two instalments in the event of default and if there was any further default, agreeing for the decree to be executed for the full amount. The undertaking was given by the petitioner on a stamp paper of Rs. 50. 00 to the said effect. There was again default on the part of the petitioner and questionable methods were employed by the petitioner raising objections for stalling the proceedings On 14-1-1984, under section 15 (b) of the Arbitration Act. the petitioner filed an application contending that the interest of 10 1/2% awarded by the arbitrator is contrary to law and is violative of the ruling of this Court reported in 1972 (2) Mysore Law Journal 430. ( 8 ) HE also made representations to the ministers of the State Government in this behalf. All these efforts were futile and the decree stood undisturbed, and the amount was not paid by the petitioner. The sale proclamation fixing the date of sale as 25-9 1987 for recovery of sum of rs. 17,861-60 P. was issued. ( 9 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the third respondent is that the petitioner having accepted the liability to pay and having made some payments, has no right to dispute his liability at this distance of time and the writ petition itself is not maintainable in law and that it is too late in the day for him to retreat from his commitment. ( 10 ) I have considered the materials placed on record. There semms to be substance and force in the contentions of the third respondent and the petitioner is not justified in delaying repayments when they are admittedly due to the third respondent. ( 10 ) I have considered the materials placed on record. There semms to be substance and force in the contentions of the third respondent and the petitioner is not justified in delaying repayments when they are admittedly due to the third respondent. The conduct of the petitioner in playing dilatory tactics does not merit the application of the rule of equity. It may also be said that where there is a conflict between equity and law, it is the law that prevails. The courts are not to be guided by unregulated sympathy and benevolence and spasmodic sentiments. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the petitioner to delay the payments especially in view of the fact that the award was passed as far back as 2-9-1974. ( 11 ) THE petitioner, who appears to be quite knowledgeable endowed with qualified knowledge of law, has acted on a misconceived notion which has no basis in legal principles that interest cannot be charged at the rate of 10 1/2% per annum on overdue amounts consequent to the failure in repaying the agreed amounts in instalments on his own undertaking. I hasten to add that Section 34 of the C. P. C. does not come to the aid of the petitioner as it is totally inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. What is binding on the petitioner is the contractual rate of interest which is 7 1/2% in accordance with the award and I consider it to be very reasonable. As regards the imposition of total rate of interest at 10 1/2 % inclusive of what is known as penal interest on count of the non-payment of the acounts amounts due carrying 7 1/2% per annum, is also reasonable. It may be observed that interest, in a wide sense, is the return of compensation for the use or retention of another person's money and it may be of three categories. They are, interest ex-contractu, interest ex-more and interest ex-lege. The first category of interest is the rate of interest fixed by the parties on the bargain of contract. It may be observed that interest, in a wide sense, is the return of compensation for the use or retention of another person's money and it may be of three categories. They are, interest ex-contractu, interest ex-more and interest ex-lege. The first category of interest is the rate of interest fixed by the parties on the bargain of contract. The second category consists of conventional interest determined by the accepted usage prevailing at the relevant time and the last category is the interest allowed by the Court or by law In AIR 1963 Punjab 411, it was held that interest allowed by the Court or by law is permissible only when empowered to grant interest ex-lege. Applying the settled principles, 7 1/2 % interest per annum allowed at the time of passing the award as contractual rate of interest and similarly 10 1/2 % interest inclusive of penal interest, interest ex-contractu on the undertaking given by the petitioner himself is fully justified. In these circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to resile from his commitment and resist payment and oppose recovery of the dues. The petitioner will not be within his rights to adopt questionable methods for procrastinating the proceedings in order to defeat the intendment of law. ( 12 ) I would like to make it clear that the authorities which are bringing the property to sale must ensure that maximum price is fetched for the property since the right of the third respondent is restricted only to recovery of the balance of amount due from the petitioner. In the process, every precaution and care should be exercised to ensure that the property is not undervalued or undersold and that every effort should be made to secure the best price commensurate with the market-value as on to-day. If it is necessary, it is open to the third respondent to have the property valued through a registered valuer of any Scheduled Bank before fixing the value of the property for the purpose of sale. ( 13 ) THERE is no merit in the contention that the provisions of Rule 38 (2) (d) of the Rules comes in the way of the sale of the property and that therefore the sale proceedings are illegal. There is no illegality or irregularity involved. ( 13 ) THERE is no merit in the contention that the provisions of Rule 38 (2) (d) of the Rules comes in the way of the sale of the property and that therefore the sale proceedings are illegal. There is no illegality or irregularity involved. A careful examination of the rules shows that there is no provision for estimating and fixing the value of the property to be sold and to mention it in the sale proclamation. However, in order to avert the miscarriage of justice, I have suggested the valuation to be done by a duly qualified Bank valuer of a Scheduled bank so that maximum price is realised by the sale of the property and after defraying the expenses and appropriating the amounts which are legitimately due to the third respondent, the balance amount shall be made over to the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of realisation of the sale proceeds. It is also made clear that the third respondent is entitled to claim and recover interest until the property is actually sold at the prescribed rate of interest according to the undertaking given by the petitioner. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Writ Petition Dismissed. --- *** --- .