JUDGMENT : T.V. ANILKUMAR, J. 1. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned today by a separate order. The proposed amendment sought by the appellants was also allowed and ordered to be carried out in the appeal memorandum by another order. We already heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and are inclined to admit the appeal to file. 2. The appellants are the original defendants in O.S. No. 178 of 2010 on the files of Sub Court, Kattappana and being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2017, this appeal is preferred. 3. Initially, the challenge against the judgment and decree was raised on various grounds attacking all the findings in the impugned judgment and decree, but later by virtue of leave granted to amend the appeal memorandum, the challenge was restricted to the portion of interest awarded by the decree and also to dismissal of counter claim which the appellants had raised in their pleadings before the court below. 4. The operative portion of the judgment contained in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment runs as follows: “In the result, suit is partly decreed allowing the plaintiff to realise an amount of Rs. 94,00,000/- (Rupees ninety four lakhs only) with 12% interest from the date of payment of it i.e. 44 lakhs endorsed in Ext.A8 from the date of that document namely 20.3.2010 and 42 lakhs remitted to the bank from 30.7.2010 till realisation with cost of this proceedings from the defendants jointly and severally and from their assets and charged over the property agreed to be sold under Ext.A8 agreement for sale.” 5. The judgment and decree of the court below show that 12% interest was awarded on Rs. 44 lakhs from 20.3.2010, the date of agreement of sale till the date of realisation thereof. The decree also shows that interest @ 12% p.a. was granted on another amount of Rs. 42 lakhs from 30.7.2019, i.e. the date of payment of the amount with ING Vysya Bank till realisation thereof. Even though the decree was for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 94 lakhs, award of interest was confined only to the aforesaid Rs. 86 lakhs. No interest was awarded on the remainder amount of Rs. 8 lakhs. 6. 42 lakhs from 30.7.2019, i.e. the date of payment of the amount with ING Vysya Bank till realisation thereof. Even though the decree was for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 94 lakhs, award of interest was confined only to the aforesaid Rs. 86 lakhs. No interest was awarded on the remainder amount of Rs. 8 lakhs. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the award of interest @ 12% p.a. from the dates specified above till realisation thereof is quite unreasonable and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore interference of this Court in the matter is called for. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the rate of interest awarded is quite reasonable and accords with strict principles of law and therefore no interference of this Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. So far as the power of the court to grant pendente lite interest is concerned, it is purely discretionary, as borne out obviously from Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for short ‘the Code’). Same is the legal position with respect to award of future interest also which accrues from the date of decree till ralisation. But so far as pre-suit interest is concerned, Section 34 of the Code has no application and it is governed either by the agreement between the parties or the statutory provisions and in the absence of both, by usage of trade and commerce or principles of equity. This appears to be the law laid down in Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra, 2001 KHC 964, cited before us. 8. The suit in the present case arose out of Ext.A8 agreement dated 20.3.2010 for sale of the property when appellants committed breach of agreement and failed to return sale consideration of Rs. 94 lakhs received from the respondent. Ext.A8 agreement for sale is totally silent with respect to the rate of interest in the case of breach committed by the parties. In the absence of agreement stipulating any rate of interest, only the principles of equity could apply and the court can, depending on facts of each case, award a reasonable rate of interest for pre-suit period. Ext.A8 agreement for sale is totally silent with respect to the rate of interest in the case of breach committed by the parties. In the absence of agreement stipulating any rate of interest, only the principles of equity could apply and the court can, depending on facts of each case, award a reasonable rate of interest for pre-suit period. The appellants have conceded in the amended appeal memorandum their liability for interest upto 6% p.a. for the pre-suit period as well as for the period from the date of suit till the date of decree. 9. Therefore, the sole question that requires to be considered is whether there was any justification with the court below in having awarded interest larger than 6% now conceded by the appellants. 10. The rule in Section 34 of the Code awarding pendente lite and future interest must be ordinarily followed in all cases depending on facts and circumstances of each case, since the interest itself means amount of compensation suffered by one party for the alleged detention of money or loss on account of him being deprived of its utility for some period of time. It was held in Jagdish Rai and Brothers vs. Union of India, (1999) 3 SCC 257 , that except on strong grounds, a court exercising power under Section 34 of the Code should not decline to award interest detracting from the ordinary course. We are also of the opinion that exercise of discretion to award or to refuse award interest shall necessarily be judicial and reasonable. 11. The impugned decree shows that interest @ 12% was awarded for the post-decretal period also, without taking into account the fact that the subject matter of litigation between the parties did not arise out of any commercial transaction. There is no dispute between the parties that the transaction between them was non-commercial nor in anyway related to trade or business. Applying the proviso to Section 34 of the Code, we hold that the court below was not justified in fixing interest exceeding 6% per annum towards the future interest, inasmuch as the deal between the parties did not admittedly arise out of a commercial transaction. To this extent, the impugned judgment and decree cannot anyway survive without necessary modification. 12. Applying the proviso to Section 34 of the Code, we hold that the court below was not justified in fixing interest exceeding 6% per annum towards the future interest, inasmuch as the deal between the parties did not admittedly arise out of a commercial transaction. To this extent, the impugned judgment and decree cannot anyway survive without necessary modification. 12. The view taken by the court below to award the pre-suit and pendente lite interests at the rate of 12% per annum does not appear to suffer from any illegality or unreasonableness, on our having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Ext.A8 agreement, the validity of which was upheld by the findings of the court below shows that the appellants undertook to execute sale-deed in respect of the property within two weeks from the date of agreement. Repelling the denial pleaded by the appellants, the court below held that it was voluntarily executed. The suit instituted in the year 2010 on the files of the Sub Court, Kattappana, was decreed only after elapse of a long period of seven years. The period for which the suit was pending for adjudication cannot be lost sight of while taking a balanced view of fixing reasonable interest pendente lite as well as future interest. 13. One of the contentions of the appellants is that when the respondent cleared the loan liability of the appellants for an amount of Rs. 42 lakhs with ING Vysya Bank, Panampilly Nagar Branch, he had allowed the respondent to enjoy the cardamom property under Ext.A8 agreement for sale and take yield till the amount of income equal to repayment of loan liability was collected by him. The appellants also put up a case that for the last five years, for which the respondent was in possession of the property, he earned the income thrice the amount of loan by taking yield from the cardamom estate. If this plea is true, probably it could be one of the reasons to refuse award of interest in the suit. But the court below took the definite view that no evidence was brought to support the contention of the appellants and thus granted a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 42 lakhs also. If this plea is true, probably it could be one of the reasons to refuse award of interest in the suit. But the court below took the definite view that no evidence was brought to support the contention of the appellants and thus granted a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 42 lakhs also. In view of this position, we are of the opinion that 12% interest fixed by the court below for the pre-suit and post-suit period till the date of decree is not liable to be interfered with. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted relying on paragraph 55 of the Central Bank of India's case (supra), that if the component of interest in the principal sum adjudged is disproportionate to the component of principal sum, the court has necessary discretion even to decline awarding of any interest stipulated by Section 34 of the Code or at least to make reasonable reduction in the interest for the period. But this theory cannot be imported to the present case since the aforesaid case cited before us relates to a suit brought up by a Bank claiming compound interest. Moreover, so far as this case is concerned, decree amount of Rs. 94 lakhs cannot be considered to be a principal sum adjudged in as much as it did not embrace any interest component. 15. The next question for consideration is whether the decree dismissing the counter claim set up by the appellants requires any interference in this appeal. It is an admitted case of the parties that loan liability to the tune of Rs. 42 lakhs was discharged by the respondent. It is also an admitted fact that while the loan was discharged with ING Vysya Bank under the authorisation of the appellants, the respondent got the original title deeds of the property released from ING Vysya Bank as per the consent of appellants. The deeds were intended to be a security in the hands of the respondent for securing repayment of the loan cleared off. Claiming that liability with the Bank was discharged, the appellants lodged counter claim before the court below seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to return originals of three sale-deeds entrusted as security for repayment of debt. This counter claim was, however, turned down by the court below for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment. 16. Claiming that liability with the Bank was discharged, the appellants lodged counter claim before the court below seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to return originals of three sale-deeds entrusted as security for repayment of debt. This counter claim was, however, turned down by the court below for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment. 16. The appellants contend that the respondent enjoyed the cardamom estate and earned income thrice the loan amount off setting their liability to him and therefore respondent is liable to return the title deeds. The court below did not accept this contention for want of necessary proof in this respect. Whatever that be, appellants now acknowledge their liability to repay Rs. 94 lakhs with reasonable interest and has withdrawn the former contentions in the appeal challenging the adverse finding of the court below in this respect. When the appellants admit liability for payment of decree amount, the question then arises is as to whether the title deeds presently in possession of respondent could be ordered to be returned by issuing a decree of mandatory injunction. 17. In our opinion, the respondent cannot refuse to return the title deeds in their possession held as security when the appellants have offered to discharge the decree debt. The retention of the documents was only upon a limited arrangement between parties that the title deeds could be held as security until the liability of respondent was discharged. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decree of mandatory injunction refused by the court below requires to be reversed and a modified decree granted in favour of the appellants. In other words, the respondent requires to be directed to handover the documents to the appellants by upholding their counter claim for return of the deeds subject to the condition of appellants depositing the modified decree debt. In substance, the impugned judgment and decree are to be modified by allowing the counter claim put forward by the appellants and reducing the awarded future interest from 12% per annum to 6%. 18. In the result, the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2017 in O.S. No. 178 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Kattappana, are set aside in part and modified as below:- The respondent will recover from the appellants jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 94,00,000/- (Rupees ninety four lakhs only) with interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 18. In the result, the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2017 in O.S. No. 178 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Kattappana, are set aside in part and modified as below:- The respondent will recover from the appellants jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 94,00,000/- (Rupees ninety four lakhs only) with interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 44 lakhs endorsed in Ext.A8 agreement for sale with effect from 20.3.2011 till the date of decree and thereafter @6% p.a. till realisation of the amount and also will recover 12% interest p.a. on Rs. 42 lakhs remitted to the ING Vysya Bank w.e.f. 30.7.2010 till the date of recovery and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the realisation thereof, with cost of this proceedings and charged over the property which is the subject matter of Ext.A8 agreement for sale. The respondent is directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to return the originals of sale-deed Nos. 178, 179, 180/2005 and 336/2004 of SRO Rajakumari through the Execution Court subject to the condition of the appellants depositing the decree amount in Court. 19. The Execution Court will be at liberty to take up and pass necessary orders on the application for appointment of Receiver and removal of attachment, if filed before it by the respondent, in accordance with law. 20. The appellants shall deposit the court fee payable on appeal within 15 days from today and the Registry shall make a report to the Court, if there is failure in complying with the direction for payment of court fee. 21. All pending interlocutory applications are closed.