Mahinder Narain, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THIS suit has been filed by Rukmani Devi. Rukmani Devi asserts that her husband Aditya Narain was partner of defendant No. l, M/sfederal Auto Store. The other partner of the husband was Mr. Pradeep Kumar Goel. ( 2 ) RUKMANI Devi,in this suit,claims Rs. l,35,484. 50p. Statement of Mr. Arjun Dass was recorded for and on behalf of the plaintiff, and defendant No. 2 has come into witness box as a witness also. His statement makes the nature of the transaction between the parties quite clear. ( 3 ) IT is admitted by Pradeep Kumar Goel that Rukmani Devi, the plaintiff, is the wife of Late Aditya Narain, and that Aditya Narain died on 18. 08. 1978, and that Aditya Narain was a partner with Pradeep Kumar Goel till he died. It is asserted by Pradeep Kumar Goel that regular books of accounts were kept by the defendant No. 1. He brought the account books with him to Court, in which the account of Rukmani Devi was recorded. ( 4 ) PRADEEP Kumar Goel makes an admission which is worthy of note in his own words "she used to give money in the form of loans. She did not deposit any amount in any other account except the loan account with M/s Federal Auto Store. " ( 5 ) THE above statement makes it clear that amount which was deposited by Rukmani Devi with defendant No. 1 was a "loan". It is not disputed that M/s Federal Auto Store is carrying on trading activities. In these trading activities,rukmani Devi s husband was also apartner. After his demise, only Pradeep Kumar Goel continues as a sole proprietor of M/s Federal Auto Store. ( 6 ) PRADEEP Kumar Goel also admits that interest was agreed to be paid on the loan given by Rukmani Devi. The rate of at which interest was payable was 12% per annum, to start with. Pradeep Kumar Goel in his statement says that the rate of interest was increased from 12% per annum to 15% per annum with effect from 13. 03. 1975. ( 7 ) THE defendants contends that interest in excess of the principal amount cannot be recovered. ( 8 ) ALSO called in aid by the counsel for defendant is Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act; 1934, which has applies to Delhi. 03. 1975. ( 7 ) THE defendants contends that interest in excess of the principal amount cannot be recovered. ( 8 ) ALSO called in aid by the counsel for defendant is Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act; 1934, which has applies to Delhi. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to Section 7 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, the word "debt" in that Act does not include debts incurred for the purposes of trade. . ( 10 ) IT is no where stated in the statement of the defendant that the money which was given by Rukmani Devi was a deposit, that the money was not for the purposes of trade. On the other hand, there is a positive assertion by Pradeep Kumar Goel that Rukmani Devi used to give loans to the partnership which was carrying on trade. ( 11 ) IN my view, in view of Section 7 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, the transaction between parties to the suit was not a debt within the meaning of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, being a debt in connection with trade, and trade in this case was trade in auto spares, the business being carried on by M/s Federal Auto Store. ( 12 ) IN my view, because of the statement of Pradeep Kumar Goel it cannot be contended that the amounts advanced by plaintiff to defendant No. 1 as loan, were "deposits". The amounts advanced being loan and not deposits, the rule of dam Dupat" does not apply to the transaction between the parties. It is fairly stated by Mr. Andley, for the defendant, that Rule of Dam Dupat, a rule of Hindu Law will apply only if the money advanced were "deposits" and not "loan" for purposes of trade to a trading company. ( 13 ). According to the method which has been adopted by the defendant for the purposes of keeping accounts, the defendant No. l has been, on its own, adding the interest not paid on the amount of loan to the credit of the loan account of Rukmani Devi from year to year. This addition is done by a method of accounting and not on the basis whether the interest is to be paid as "simple interest" or "compound interest". ( 14 ). This addition is done by a method of accounting and not on the basis whether the interest is to be paid as "simple interest" or "compound interest". ( 14 ). As an account was being kept and maintained, the amount which is due in favour of the plaintiff would be recoverable by the plaintiff. Defendant has confirmed balance due to the plaintiff byex. P-10,on 15. 09. 1975 that a sum of Rs. 29,273. 58 p. is lying to the credit of the loan account as on 31. 03. 1975, and that the said amount bears interest at the rate of 15% per annum. ( 15 ). There arc other confirmations by defendant No. 1, which is in the shape of EX. P- 4, dated 21. 07. 1983 according to which confirmation (made by Pradeep Kumar Goel, Proprietor) a credit balance in the loan account of Rukmani Devi as on 31. 03. 1983 was a sum of Rs. 97,297. 00. In this confirmatory letter, it is also confirmed that interest was payable at the rate of 15% for the period 01. 04. 1982 to 31. 03. 1983 totalling Rs. l4,594. 50p. This interest is to be added to be balance confirmed, making up a total amount of Rs. 1,11,891. 50p- ( 16 ) IN view of these two confirmations, I do not think that there is any subsistence in the contention of Mr. Andley that rule of Dam Dupat applies or Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 applies to the instant case. ( 17 ) IN any case, it has kept in view that the person who is claiming the return of the amount of loan is the widow of an ex-partner, who had given money to a trading concern and according to the accounting procedure adopted by that partnership, after demise of the husband, the sole proprietor of Federal Auto Store, defendant No. 1, the interest was added by the Surviving Partner on to the principal amount. Therefore, I am not inclined to invoke and apply the principles of Dam Dupat in this case. ( 18 ) IN addition to the above said amount, a further loan of Rs. 8,500. 00 was given which is detailed in Para (3) of the plaint. This loan is admitted in Para 3 of the written statement. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 8,500. 00 also has to be paid. Against this amount of Rs. ( 18 ) IN addition to the above said amount, a further loan of Rs. 8,500. 00 was given which is detailed in Para (3) of the plaint. This loan is admitted in Para 3 of the written statement. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 8,500. 00 also has to be paid. Against this amount of Rs. 8,500. 00 , there is aclaim of adjustment of a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 by the defendant in Para (4) of the written statement, wherein it is stated that Rs. 3,500. 00 were paid in full and final settlement of this amount. In his statement, Pradeep Kumar Goel does not dispute paying of Rs. 3,500. 00 to the plaintiff, after an alleged adjustment of Rs. 5,000. 00. ( 19 ) IN my view,there is not adequate evidence of a proper or lawful adjustment made, adjustment being to the tune of Rs. 5,000. 00 , being an amount allegedly due to from deceased Aditya Narain to Pradeep Kumar Goel. This adjustment, it was contended, did was during the life time of Aditya Narain. There is no proof of acceptance of this adjustment either by Adityanarain, on behalf of his wife Rukmani Devi,or,by Rukmani Devi. I do not think this adjustment can be allowed. Rukmani Devi is, therefore, entitled to refund of Rs. 8,500. 00 claimed in Para 3 of the plaint. ( 20 ) IN this view of the matter, the plaintiff would be entitled to the amount claimed in suit, i. e. , Rs. 1,35,484. 50 p. However, it is not disputed that during the pendency of the proceedings, upon passing of an order dated 24. 07. 1985 under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, a decree in the sum ofrs. 76,343. 86p. together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 46,696. 29 p. from the date of institution of the suit,i. e. ,26. 10. 1983 till realisation was passed against the respondent. The amount of the preliminary decree has been stated to have been fully satisfied. This amount, the plaintiff is entitled to receive back with interest at the agreed rate of 15% per annum not only 12% per annum. ( 21 ) THE interest amount on the principal amount of Rs. l,35,848. 50 p. at the rate of 15% per annum comes to Rs. 2,03,220. 00. This amount, the plaintiff is entitled to receive back with interest at the agreed rate of 15% per annum not only 12% per annum. ( 21 ) THE interest amount on the principal amount of Rs. l,35,848. 50 p. at the rate of 15% per annum comes to Rs. 2,03,220. 00. The total amount which is receivable by the plaintiff being Rs. 3,87,708. 00. As a sum of Rs. 1,11,344. 00 has already been received by the plaintiff, she is entitle to recover the balance amount of Rs. 2,27,356. 00. ( 22 ) A decree is, accordinly, passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of Rs. 2,27,356. 00 , which amount has to be repaid with interest at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment. ( 23 ) MR. Andley prays for instalments. However, keeping in view that the plaintiff is stated to be 77 years of age, I am not inclined to give any instalments. ( 24 ) PLAINTIFF shall also have her costs. Counsel s fee is quantified at Rs. 2,500. 00. ( 25 ) A decree be prepared accordingly.