Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 339 (MP)

Motilal (Deceased) v. Bank of India

2003-02-27

A.K.GOHIL

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS judgment shall also govern disposal of Bank of India v. Sushilabai and Anr. , First Appeal No. 14 of 1984, arising out of the same judgment and decree dated 1. 7. 1983, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 9-A/82. While the former appeal is against the award of interest on agriculture loan, the latter is for correcting calculation mistake in para 32 of the judgment. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff/bank of India filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 21,398. 81 alongwith interest and for future interest @ 13% p. a. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for the recovery of the amount for the mortgaged land and hypothecated movable property. After trial, by the impugned judgment and decree the Trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 15,180/- with corresponding costs and the future interest on Rs. 14,105. 77 @ 11% p. a. till the date of recovery of the amount, against which both the parties have filed these appeals. ( 3. ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as F. A. No. 91/83 is concerned, this appeal is fully covered by the decision of this Court in the case of State Bank of Indore v. Smt. Parwatibai, 1992 R. N. 381, in which Mr. Justice R. C. Lahoti (as he then was) has clearly held that when land is mortgaged in favour of the Nationalised Bank and if there is dispute regarding rate of interest or maximum amount of interest, the ceiling limit of interest contemplated under Section 165 (3) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is not attracted. The provisions of Section 24 of the Krishi Udhar Pravartan Tatha Prakirna Upbandh (Bank) Adhiniyam, 1972 would over-ride the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 165 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. The plaintiff-Bank being a Bank within the meaning of Section 2 (c) (iii) of the Adhiniyam, Section 24 of Krishi Udhar Adhiniyam, Section 24 of the Adhiniyam would exclude the applicability of ceiling limit prescribed by Sub-section (3) of Section 165 of the Code to the case in hand. ( 4. ) IN this case, admittedly, on 3. 1. 1974 a loan of Rs. ( 4. ) IN this case, admittedly, on 3. 1. 1974 a loan of Rs. 3,000/- was advanced to the defendant for installing motor pump and also for construction of a room and again on 24. 5. 1974 a loan of Rs. 7,500/- was advanced for construction of a well and for raising its depth. Both the loans were payable in instalments with 11% p. a. agreed interest with half- yearly rest. The defendant failed to pay the said loan, therefore, the Bank has filed suit for recovery of Rs. 21390. 88. ( 5. ) SINCE the loan was taken for agricultural purposes, it was argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant that under the provisions of Section 165 (3) of the M. P. L. R. Code the Nationalised Bank cannot recover the interest more than the principal amount. However, this argument of the learned Counsel is not acceptable, in the light of clear provisions of Section 24 of the M. P. Krishi Udhar Pravartan Tatha Prakirna Upbandh (Bank) Adhiniyam, 1972 and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the objection of the defendant and has rightly decreed the suit. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court as also the clear provisions of Section 24 of the Adhiniyam this objection raised by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant is not sustainable and the appeal filed by him deserves to be dismissed. ( 6. ) AS regards, F. A. No. 14/84, main contention of Mr. R. C. Chhajed, Counsel for the appellant-Bank is that the Trial Court erred in law in awarding a decree for Rs. 15,180. 42, whereas it should have been for Rs. 15,680/-, as such, there is a calculation mistake of Rs. 500/ -. In reply, Mr. M. K. Jain, Counsel for the defendant-respondent has raised no objection for rectifying the mistake committed while calculating the decretal amount. Thus, in the judgment the decretal amount shall be read as Rs. 15,680. 42 instead of Rs. 15,180. 42. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY, F. A. No. 91/83 is dismissed and the connected F. A. No. 14/84 is allowed and it is directed that the defendant shall pay Rs. 15,680. 42 to the plaintiff with corresponding costsof the suit and future interest on Rs. 14,105. 77 @ 11% p. a. till the date of recovery. 15,180. 42. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY, F. A. No. 91/83 is dismissed and the connected F. A. No. 14/84 is allowed and it is directed that the defendant shall pay Rs. 15,680. 42 to the plaintiff with corresponding costsof the suit and future interest on Rs. 14,105. 77 @ 11% p. a. till the date of recovery. There shall be no order as to costs in both the appeals, A copy of this judgment be retained in the record of F. A. No. 14/84.