Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 321 (HP)

RAJ PAL CHAUHAN v. ANANT RAM NEGI

2005-09-05

V.M.JAIN

body2005
JUDGEMENT V.M. Jain, J.: This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. 2.Anant Ram Negi (plaintiff) had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,54,000/-as principal amount and Rs.54,000/- as interest @ 18% per annum), against Raj Pal, defendant on the basis of a receipt dated 5.11.1993 showing that Raj Pal, defendant had taken a sum of Rupees One Lac as loan from Anant Ram Negi, plaintiff for household needs, it was alleged that the defendant had issued a cheque for Rupees One Lac in favour of the plaintiff for repayment of the said amount but the same was dishonoured. It was further alleged that the defendant having failed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest, the plaintiff fifed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,54,000/- which included principal amount and interest @ 18% per annum. In the written statement, the defendant admitted having issued a cheque of Rupees One Lac in favour of the plaintiff, but it was alleged that it was on account of bet that he had issued the said cheque. 3.After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, it was found by the trial Court that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rupees One Lac to the defendant and in lieu thereof, the defendant had issued the said cheque for Rupees One Lac and that the said cheque was dishonoured and that the defendant had failed to repay the loan amount and as such, the plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of Rupees One Lac alongwith interest @ 18% per annum for the date of loan i.e. 5.11.1993 till the realization of the entire amount. It was further held that the story regarding bet was not proved on the record. The learned Additional District judge also upheld the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant. 4. It was further held that the story regarding bet was not proved on the record. The learned Additional District judge also upheld the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant. 4. When the present appeal came up for hearing before me on 23.3.2005, it was submitted before me by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the interest awarded by the Courts below was on the higher side especially when there was no contractual rate of interest and in case future/further interest could not be more than 6% as it was not a commercial transaction. Thereupon, the notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondent and records were also requisitioned. 5.1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, the following substantial questions of law arise for determination in this appeal: 1. Whether the Courts below were justified in awarding 18% per annum interest to the plaintiff on the loan amount of Rupees One Lac, in the absence of any contractual rate of interest? 2. Whether the Courts below could have granted future interest @ 18% per annum, beyond the date of decree, when the transaction in question was not a commercial transaction/ 6. So far as the decree passed by the Courts below with regard to the amount of Rupees One Lac is concerned, in my opinion, the Courts below were perfectly justified In decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the principal amount of Rupees One Lac. Both the Courts below found it as a fact that the plaintiff had given a sum of Rupees One Lac to the defendant in cash towards loan amount and that the defendant had issued a cheque for Rupees One Lac in favour of the plaintiff for the repayment of the said amount. It was found by the Courts below that the defendant had failed to repay the loan amount of Rupees One Lac to the plaintiff. It was also found by the Courts below that the defendant had failed to prove that there was any bet between the parties or that the said transaction was the result of a wager. It was found by the Courts below that the defendant had failed to repay the loan amount of Rupees One Lac to the plaintiff. It was also found by the Courts below that the defendant had failed to prove that there was any bet between the parties or that the said transaction was the result of a wager. These findings give by the Courts below, in my opinion, are findings of fact based on evidence led by the parties and as such, do no call for any interference from this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal. This is especially so when nothing has been pointed out before me that there was any misreading of evidence or that any material piece of evidence was ignored by the Courts below while coming to these conclusions. Accordingly, I affirm the findings of the Courts below with regard to the recovery of Rupees One Lac towards principal amount. 7. The next question that comes up for consideration is as to what rate the interest could be awarded to the plaintiff on the aforesaid loan amount of Rupees One Lac. Admittedly, there is no contractual rate of interest. It is not the case of the defendant that he had taken a friendly loan form the plaintiff without interest. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the plaintiff would be entitled to claim interest on the loan amount of Rupees One Lac. In my opinion, in the absence of any contractual rate of interest between the parties, it is a fit case where the ends of justice would be fully met in case the plaintiff was awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rupees One Lac from the date when the loan was taken i.e. 5.11.1993 till the date of the filing of the suit, considering that the transaction is dated 5.11.1993. I am further of the opinion that the ends of justice would be fully met in case the interest @ 12% per annum is also awarded to the plaintiff on the principal amount of Rupees One Lac from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of decree, as in my opinion, interest @ 12% per annum would be reasonable to be paid on the principal sum, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am further of the opinion that the plaintiff would been entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rupees One Lac from the date of the decree passed by the trial Court till its realization, keeping in view that it was not a commercial transaction between the parties. 8.In view of the above, both the substantial question of law are decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent and it is held that the plaintiff-respondent would be entitled to claim interest @ 12% per annum (instead of 18% per annum) from the date of loan i.e. 5.11.1993 up to the date of filing of the suit and also @ 12% per annum (instead of 18% per annum) form the date of the filing of the suit till the date of decree passed by the trial Court, on the principal amount of Rupees One Lac. Furthermore, the plaintiff would be entitled to claim interest 6% per annum (instead of 18%) on the principal amount of Rupees One Lac form the date of passing of the decree by the trial Court till the realization. 9.For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is partly allowed, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are modified and suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the recovery of Rupees One Lac as principal amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rupees One Lac from the date of loan i.e. 5.11.1993 till the date of the decree passed by the trial Court and thereafter, the plaintiff would be entitled to claim interest @ 6% per annum en the principal amount of Rupees One Lac from the date of the decree passed by the trial Court till its realization. However, there shall be no order to as to costs in this appeal.