# SARDAR SAMSHER SINGH v. RAJA SARDAR N"ARAIN AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1961] 1 S.C.R. 118
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 216 of 1954
- **Bench:** S. K. Das, M. HIDAYA'l'ULLAH, K. c. DAB GUPTA, J.C. SHAil, N. Rajagopala Ayya:Sgar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sardar-samsher-singh-v-raja-sardar-n-arain-and-others-1913
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Debt Relief-Decree on mortgage-·-Rcduction of inlcrest--Statutt Prohibiting allowing of interest excced:.ng principal sum dueAppli"catio11 of-Relevant dalc-U. P. Enrnmbered Estates
Act,
1934 (U. P. XXV of 1934), s. 14(4)(a).
N borroy:ccl rupees one lakh from Don 1nortgagc of a house
and Zamin<lari interest on :\larch I, 1924.
Interest \Vas 8% per
annum compoundable with six monthly rests. In 1932 the mortgagee filed a suit on the mortgai;e and a dec:ec was passed for
the recovery of Rs. r,83.781/si9 pnnc1pal and interest upto the
date of the suit and Rs. 49,280/2/6 interest from date of the suit
upto the date fixed for payment, with future interest at 6",1. per
annum simple on the principal sum. On the failure of the mortgagor to pay by the date fixed a final decree was passed on
May 9, 1935. for sale of the property for recovery of a sum of
Rs. 2.37.503i5.t(1 which had become due. On October 26, rq36,
N made an application under s. 4 of the U. P. Encumbered
Estates Act, r934, rec1uesting that the provisions of the Act be
applied to him. Section 14(4)(a) of the Act provided that "the
amount of interest held to be due on the date of application shall
not exceed that portion of the principal which may stili be
found to be due on the date of the application".· N contc11ded
that in view of s. 14(4)(a), D was not entitled to recover any
sum as interest in excess or the principal sum of rupees one
lakh.
]) contended that it was not necessary to reopen the decree as the principle of s. 14(4)(a) had not hcen violated in passing the decree.
Held, that the proper decree that should have been passed
on the application was for rupees two lakhs for the principal
and interest plus costs and interest penclente lite and future
interest at 4% per annum. The words" on the date of the application" in s. 14(4)(a) of the Act had been deliberately used to
benefit the applicant by recluci11g the interest to the amount of
the principal found still due on the date of the application,
\vhatcver amount of interest rnay be due under the contract.
The fact that there had been a decree did not make any
difference in giving the benefit of the section to the applicant.
Pandit Ramsagar Prasad v.
Mst. Shayama, A.LR. 1939
Oudb 75, disapproved.
RHki.n-uddin v. Lachhmi Narain, l.L.R. 1945 All.
307,
referred to.
~ .,
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
119

## Text

I
o
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[Hl6 l]
SARDAR SAMSHER SINGH
v.
RAJA SARDAR N"ARAIN AND OTHERS.
(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYA'l'ULLAH, K. c. DAB GUPTA,
J.C. SHAil and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYA:SGAR, JJ.)
Debt Relief-Decree on mortgage-·-Rcduction of inlcrest--Statutt Prohibiting allowing of interest excced:.ng principal sum dueAppli"catio11 of-Relevant dalc-U. P. Enrnmbered Estates
Act,
1934 (U. P. XXV of 1934), s. 14(4)(a).
N borroy:ccl rupees one lakh from Don 1nortgagc of a house
and Zamin<lari interest on :\larch I, 1924.
Interest \Vas 8% per
annum compoundable with six monthly rests. In 1932 the mortgagee filed a suit on the mortgai;e and a dec:ec was passed for
the recovery of Rs. r,83.781/si9 pnnc1pal and interest upto the
date of the suit and Rs. 49,280/2/6 interest from date of the suit
upto the date fixed for payment, with future interest at 6",1. per
annum simple on the principal sum. On the failure of the mortgagor to pay by the date fixed a final decree was passed on
May 9, 1935. for sale of the property for recovery of a sum of
Rs. 2.37.503i5.t(1 which had become due. On October 26, rq36,
N made an application under s. 4 of the U. P. Encumbered
Estates Act, r934, rec1uesting that the provisions of the Act be
applied to him. Section 14(4)(a) of the Act provided that "the
amount of interest held to be due on the date of application shall
not exceed that portion of the principal which may stili be
found to be due on the date of the application".· N contc11ded
that in view of s. 14(4)(a), D was not entitled to recover any
sum as interest in excess or the principal sum of rupees one
lakh.
]) contended that it was not necessary to reopen the decree as the principle of s. 14(4)(a) had not hcen violated in passing the decree.
Held, that the proper decree that should have been passed
on the application was for rupees two lakhs for the principal
and interest plus costs and interest penclente lite and future
interest at 4% per annum. The words" on the date of the application" in s. 14(4)(a) of the Act had been deliberately used to
benefit the applicant by recluci11g the interest to the amount of
the principal found still due on the date of the application,
\vhatcver amount of interest rnay be due under the contract.
The fact that there had been a decree did not make any
difference in giving the benefit of the section to the applicant.
Pandit Ramsagar Prasad v.
Mst. Shayama, A.LR. 1939
Oudb 75, disapproved.
RHki.n-uddin v. Lachhmi Narain, l.L.R. 1945 All.
307,
referred to.
~ .,
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
119
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 216 of 1954.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 26, 1946, of the former Chief Court of A vadh at
Lucknow, in First A-ppeal No. 7 of 1940.
N aunit Lal, for the appellant.
S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, J.B. Dadachanji
and P. L. Vohra, for respondent No. 1.
1960. August 5.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Sardar
Samsher Singh
v.
Raja Sardar
Narain & Others
DAS GUPTA J.-This appeal raises the question of Das Gupta J.
interpretation of s. 15 of the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, 1934. On March 1, 1924, Sardar
Nihal Singh, the predecessor of the appellant before
us, borrowed a sum of rupees one lakh from Raja
Durga Narain Singh, predecessor of the respondents,
on mortgage of a house in Butlergunj, Lucknow and
also the entire Zamindari interest in a village Parsera. Interest was 8 per cent. per. annum compound
with six .monthly rests. In 1932 Raja Durga Narain
Singh brought a suit for recovery of Rs. l,83,791-5-9 on
account of principal and interest due on the mortgage,
by sale of the mortgaged property. Iu this suit the
Subordinate Judge, Lucknow, made a preliminary
decree declaring the amount due to the plaintiff on
the mortgage calculated up to March 29, 1935,
to be Rs. 1,83,791-5-9 up to the date of the suit,
Rs. 49,280-2-6 as the amount due on account of interest thereupon from March 13, 1932, the date of the
suit to March 29, 1935, the date fixed for payment.
A sum of Rs. 4,314-2-9 was awarded as the cost of the
suit. The defendant was ordered to pay this total
sum of Rs. 2,37,385-11-0 before the 29th day of March,
1935, with future interest at 6 per cent. per annum
simple on the principal sum of rupees one la.kb. The
amount not having been.paid on that date, the Court
on an application made by the mortgagee-decreeholder made a final decree on May 9, 1935, directing
sale of the property for recovery of the sum of
Rs. 2,37,503-5-6 with future interest as in the preliminary decree,.( this sum being the total of Rs. 2,37,305-11-0
•
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
196o
of the prelimine.ry decree, Rs. 116-10-1 the interest
from March 30, 1935, and rupee one the cost of the
Sardar
samsher SingJ. fine.I decree).
An application for revision under s. 115
v.
of the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with this
R•J• Salda•
decree was rejected by the Chief Court ofOudh on April
N•••in & Othm 20, 1937. Before this, on October 26, 1936, an a.pplice.-
tion had been me.de by Se.rda.r N iha.l Singh under s. 4
; Das Gupta·]. of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, requesting the
provisions of the Act to be applied to him.
After this
a.pplica.tion ca.me before the Specie.I Judge in accordance with the provisions of s. 6, the. mortga.gee-decreeholder Re.je. Durga. Na.re.in Singh filed a. written statement of his cle.im on September 30, 1937, and stated tha.t
the a.mount due to him on the be.sis of his decree wa.s
Rs. 2,51,904-8-6 including Rs. 14,300 a.s interest subsequent to the fine.I decree till September 30, 1937,
e.nd a. sum of Rs. 51-3-0 the decree for costs in his
favour by the Oudh Chief Court when rejecting the
mortge.gor's a.pplica.tion for revision. He pre.yed tha.t a.
decree for Rs. 2,51,904-8-6 be pa.BBed in his favour
a.go.inst the e.pplica.nt Sa.rde.r Niha.I Singh e.nd his
property. The applicant contested this claim plea.ding that the principal a.mount borrowed from the
cla.ime.nt being rupees one le.kh the cla.ime.nt we.a not
entitled to recover a.ny sum as interest thereupon in
exceBB of the principal a.mount under s. 14 of the
Encumbered Esta.tee Act. This plea. was rejected by
.the Specie.I Judge who held tha.t the cla.ime.nt was
entitled to Rs. 2,37,503-5-6 for which the fine.I decree
we.a pa.seed, e.nd e.lso Rs. 51-3-0 as costs in the matter
of revision e.pplice.tion and further to 6 per cent. per
annum interest on rupees one la.kb from May 29, 1935,
the date of the fine.I decree till the da.te of the application under the Encumbered Esta.tea Act, i.e., October
26; 1936. Accordingly he ge.ve the claimant a. simple
money decree for ,Rs. 2,46,338-8-6 with proportionate
costs a.nd future interest a.t the re.te of 4 per.cent.
per e.ooum simple from the da.te of a.pplica.tion till
realisation.
On e.ppee.l, the Chief Court of Oudh rejected the
appelle.nt's contention the.t the Specie.I Judge we.s
bound by s. 14 of the Act to limit the decree to a sum
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
121
Ig6o
of rupees two lakhs only and held that. in so far as
the preliminary decree found Rs. 1,83,791-5-9 as the
amount due on the mortgage on March 29, 1932, it
·was not inconsistent with s. 14 of the Encumbered
Est.ates Act, and so the Special Judge was bound to
accept this finding under s. 15. It held however that
in so far as this decree allowed interest pendente lite
on the above amount from March 19, 1932, to March
29, 1935, at 8% per annum, it was inconsistent with
sub-s. 7 of s. 14.
The Chief Court accordingly held
that this interest pendente lite must be reduced to
4t% simple.
After saying that a sum of Rs. 4,314-2-9
would be added on account of costs, rupee one should
5iardar
San1sher Singh
v.
l~aja Sardar
Naraiu & Others
-
Das Gupta ].
be added on account of the costs of the final decree
and Rs. 51-3-0 as costs of a revision application, the
Court held that the principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000
sl:.all carry interest from March 29, 1935, till the date
of application under s. 4 of the Encumbered E~tates
Act, viz., October 26, 1936, and that the aggregate of
these figures shall ·carry interest from October 27,
1936, till realisation at 4 per cent. per annum. It
directed a decree for the sum thus found to be substituted for that passed by the Subordinate Judge. An
application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council
against this decree was made on January 13, 1947.
This application was disposed of on April 14, 1953.
Holding that the valuation of t_he suit was well over
Rs. 20,000 and the value of the appeal to the Supreme
Court was Rs. 41,971-2-9 the Chief Court gave, in
view of the modification made by it in the lower court's
decree, a certificate that the case fulfils ~he requirements of s. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
that the applicant had a right to appeal to the
Supreme Court. On the strength of that certificate the
present appeal was filed.
When the appeal came up for hearing before a
Bench ·of four judges of this Court Mr. Andley, on
behalf of the respondents stated that in this case he
was raising a constitutional point. Thereupon the '
Court directed that the matter be posted before the
Constitution Bench. That is how the 11-ppeal has
come up for hearing and final disposal before us.
16
I 99
SlJPRE:lfE COCHT REPORTS
(1961]
i96o
Mr. Andlcv stated before us that the Constitutional
point which lie had wanted to raise was whether the
.<.,·ardctt
J·ndgment of tbe Chief Court was one of affirmance
Sainslur Sin{!h
v.
under Art. 133(1) of tbc Constitution but that he did
Raja sa"i<"
not wish to pursue t.his point.
As Mr. Andley does
.\'~Jrain &
Other~ "lot. press hiH constitutional })oint, no further discus8ion
of this is necess1Hv.
Da> r;upia J.
The real coutro~'ersy in the case betwncn the parties
is, as already indicat-0cl, a• regarc!H th<' interpretation
of s. 15 of the Enc:umbcred EHtateH Act. The relevant
portion of s. 15 i~ in these words:-
"In determining the amount due on the basis of a
loan which haA been the snbject. of it decree the
Special .Judge shall accept the findings of the Court
which passed the decree except in so far as they arc
inconsistent with the provisions of s. 14."
A later amendmont by which after the words and
tigures "s. 14 ", the wordH "ors. 4 of the U. P. Zamindars Debts Reduction Act, 1952:' were added is not
relevant for our purpose. Section 14 runs as follows:-
" 14. (1) The Speci!tl ,Judge sha.ll, by an order
in writing, fix a date for enquiring into the claims
ma.de in pursuance of the notice published in accordance with s. 9 aud gh·e notice of such date to all the
claimants and the persou who made the application
under R. 4.
(2) The Special Judge shall examine ca.ch claim
and after hearing such parties as desired to be heard
and considering the evidence, if any, produced by
them shall determine the amount, if any, due from
the landlord to the claimant on the elate of the application under s. 4.
(3) All evidence recorded in any suit or proceeding which is stayed under sub-section (1) of section 7
may be taken by the Special Judge as eviclence
. recorded before himself.
( 4) In examining each claim tho Special .Judge
shall have and exercise all the powers of the Court in
which a suit for the recovery of the money due would
lie and shall decide the questions in issue on the
principles as those on which such court would decide
them, subject to the following provisions, namely :-
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
123
(a) the amount of interest held to be due on
the date of the application shall not exceed that,
portion of the principal which may still be found to
be due on the date of the application:
(b) the provisions of the United Provinces
Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934, shall not be applicable
to proceedings under this Act.
(5) For the purpose of ascertaining the principal
under clause (a) of sub-section (4) the Special Judge
shall treat as principal any accumulated interest
which has been convert.ed into principal at any statement or settlement of account or by any contract
made in the course of the transaction on or before
December 31, 1916.
Explanation :-Interest which on or before Decem·
her 31, 1916, became part of the principal under the
express terms of original contract shall, for the purposes
of this section, be deemed to be principal.
(6) For the purposes of ascertaining the principal
under clause (a) of sub-section (4) the Special Judge
shall not treat as principal any accumulated interest
which has been converted into principal at any statement or settlement of accounts or by any contract
made in t.he course of the transactions after December
31, 1916.
(7) If the Special Judge linds that any amount is
due to the claimant he shall pass a simple money
decree for such amount, together with any costs which
he may allow in respect of proceedings iri his court and
of proceedings in any civil court stayed under the
provisions of this Act, together with pendente lite and
future interest, at a rate not greater than. the rate
specified in section 27, and if he finds that no amount
is due he may pass a decree for costs in favour of the
landlord. Such decree shall be deemed to be a decree
of a civil court of competent jnrisdiction but no decree
against the landlord shall be executable within Uttar
Pradesh except under the provisions of the Act:
Provided that no pendente lite interest shall be ·
allowed in the case ot any debt where the creditor was
in possession of any portion of the debtor's property
in lieu of interest payable on such debt."
Sardar
Samsher Singh
v.
Raja Sardar
J.l urain & Others
Das Gupta ].
Sart'ar
Sam.~hcr St111;h
v
0Utijn Sardar
N"arai11 (\).Others
Das Gupta ].
124
SUPH.E)!E COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Obviously there can be no question of any incon~is
tency in a finding of a court which has passed a decree
on the basis of a loan, with the provisions mentioned
in sub-ss. l, 2 & 3 of s. 14; nor is there a.ny question
of any inconsistency with the provisions of sub-secttion 7 of s. 14, a.s those provisions apply only.after the
Special .Judge has found the a.mount due to the claimant a.nd tho question of inconsistency of a.ny finding
in the decree with the provisions of s. 14 arise under
s. 15 at the stage when the a.mount dno is being determined. Sub-sections 4, 5 and 6 of s. 14 however require
eareful consideration of the Special Judge, when
oxa.mining a decree of a. Civil Court, to find whether
any of the findings of the court is inconsistent with
those provisions. If they a.re inconsistent with a.ny of
those provisions he has to reject the findings to the
extent of such inconsistency. Thus, if for example,
the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act., 1918, would
be beneficial t.o t.he applicant landlord and ha\•e not
been ta.ken into consideration by the court which passed the decree the Special Judge will have to give effect
•to s. l4(4)(b) of the Act t-0 modify the finding of the
Court as regards the a.mount due, a.fter applying the
provisions of the Usurious Loa.ns Act. On the other
hand, if the provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists
Relief Act, 1934, ha.ve been applied by the Civil Court,
tho finding a.a regards the a.mount due in so far as the
same wa.s based on those provisions cannot, in view of
its inconsistency with sub-s. 4(c) of s. 14 be accepted
by the Civil Court a.nd he will ha.ve to modify the
~a.me, leaving out t.he provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. Similarly if in arriving at the
a.mount due, the Court which passed the decree has
a.cted inconsistently with sub-ss. 5 and 6 of s. 14, t.he
finding will have to be modified by the Special ,Judge
by applying the provisions of su b-ss. 5 a.nd 6. So, a.lso
if tho finding of the Court which passed the decree is
" inconsistent with " the provisions of sub-s. 4(a.) of
s. 14 of the Encumbered Eta.tea Act the finding' will
ha.ve to be rejected in so fa.r a.s it is inconsistent. The
question that ha.s a.risen in this case and ma.y a.s well
a.rise in other eases, is whether when in a.soerta.ining
.....
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
125
the amount due on the basis of a loan, at the date of
the snit, the Con rt which passed the decree did not
allow interest exceeding the portion of the principal
which was still due at the date of the suit, the finding
as regards the amount due is inconsistent with s. 14(4)
(a) because the consequence of that finding as regards
the amount due, together with interest allowed thereupon, is that on the date of the a.pplication the amount
of interest due exceeds the portion of the principal
remaining unpaid on the date of the application.
On
behalf of the decree-holder-claimant it is contended
that all that is necessary to save inconsistency with
sub-s. 14(4)(a) is that the principle that the a.mount of
interest shall not exceed the amount of the unpaid
principal has been followed, in passing the decree and
tho fact that the result of the finding would be that on
the date of the application u/s. 4 of the Act the interest
due. would exceed the portion of the principal unpaid
on such date is of no conseq11ence.
This contention
cannot in our opinion be accepted.
The requirement of sub-s. 4(a) of s. 14 is that" the
amount of interest held to be due on the date of the
application shall not exceed that portion of the principal which may still be found. to be due on the date of
the application." The words "on the date of the
application " cannot be ignored.
There can be no
doubt that these words "on the date of the application" were deliberately used in the sub-section for the
purpose of benefiting the landlord applicant to this
extent that whatever interest due on the contract
may amount to, it will be limited to the amount of the
principal found st.ill remaining due, on t.he date of the
application.
When the Legislature goes fort.her and
provides that if prior to the application a decree has
been made on the basis of the loan the findings of the
Court which passed the decree shall he accepted but
forbids such acceptance if such finding is inconsistent
with the provisions of s. 14, the intention clearly is that
the fact that there has been a decree will not make
any difference as regards the duty of the Special Judge
to give the applicant the benefit of the provisions of
s. 14.
When the Court passed the decree, there was
Sarda,y
s·ani:;he;' Singh
v.
l~aja · Sai-dar
Narain {',~·Others
])as Gupta ].
.'i.cJrcft1Y
.f.:.·am<lieY S111:;h
v.
na;a SflYd.'JY
,VaYcu11 .:...;,,, Others
Das GuplA J.
126
Sl:PRE:i!E COCRT REPORTS
[1961 J
no a.pplica.tiou under tho Encumbertid Estates Act,
and so, there could bo no quest.ion of the Cc>urt then
complying with the provisions of s. 14(4)(a}. Even so,
when the Special .Judge !ms t.o reject such of the findings as are" inconsi•tcnt" with s. 14, he must find out
the effect of the several findings of ·the court to ascertain whether there is such inconsistenc\'.
Where the
consequence of the finding of the cou~t. which passed
the dccreH is that the provisions of s. 14(4)(a} about the
a.mount of interest due on tho date of the application
not exceeding the unpaid principal on that dat-0 arc
contravened, the finding should be held to be inconsiHtent with these provisions.
In saying that if in the
decree the court did not allow interest a.s on the date
of the snit lo exceed the principal then remaining due
ther'l is n<> inconsistency withs. 14(4}(a}, the respondont.'s connsel jg in effect asking us lo read for the
words " in so far as they a.re inconsist.ent with the provisions of s. 14" the words" in so far as thev would
have been inconsistent with the proviHions o( s. 14, if
the date of the institution of the suit be deemed to be
the date of the application under s. •1."
For this we
cannot find a.ny justification.
Not only would this
defeat the bf'nefi.,ial pnrposc of tho legislation under
s. 14(4}(a); but this will also not be the natural meaning of the words " in so far a.~ they a.re incozrnistent
with the proviHions of s. 14."
The Chief Court's view that tho Speci3l .Judge has
merely to see whether th~ Civil Court that pasRPd the
.decree could ha.vo passed the decree which it did pass
if that court had hacl to apply the provisions of s. 14,
treating the date of the irrntitution of the suit a.s the
<la.to of the application cannot therefore be accepted as
correcL
The samo view had been ta.ken by the Chief
Court of Oudh in an earlier decision, of Pandit Ramsagar Prasad v. Mst. 8hayama (' }. A Full Bench oft.he
Allahabad High Court had in Rukun-uddin v. Lachhmi
Narain(') to ~onsider the question whf'ther a finding
in a decree made by a civil court that the creditor is
entitled to interest only at the rates specified in U. P.
Agriculturists Helief Act was inconsi~tent with the
(1) A.l.R. 1939 OuJb 75.
(2) l.L.R. [1945] All. 307.
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
127
provisions of s. 14 of the U. P. Encumbered Estates
r96o
Act and was therefore not binding on the Special Judge
Sardar
hearing an application under the U. P. Encumbered. Samshcr Singh
Estates Act. They held that such a finding must be
v.
held to be inconsistent with the provisions of S. 14 and
Raja Sarda'
could therefore not be binding on the Special Judge. Narain & Othm
There can be no doubt about the correctness of this
f
h
)
Das Gupta ].
view, or, as as been pointed out aboves. 14(4)(c provides that the provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists
Relief Act shall not be applicable to proceedings under
the Encumbered Estates Act. One of the learned judges
Mr.Justice Verma referred with approval in the course
of his judgment to the view taken in Ramsagar Prasad's Gase (1).
For the reasons mentioned earlier however we are of opinion that the view in Ramsagar
Prasad's Gase (1) which has been followed by the Chief
Court in the present case is wrong.
Our conclusion therefore is that the Special Judge is
even where there has been a decree by a civil court in
respect of a loan bound to follow the provisions of
s. 14(4)(a) of the Act so that the amount of interest
which he can hold to be due on the date of the application must not exceed the portion of the principal found
to be due on the date of the application.
Accordingly
h the present. case the Special Judge should have held
the amount of interest due on the date of the application, i.e., October 26, 1936, to amount to rupees one
lakh only, that being the principal which was still due
on that date. Under the provisions of sub-s. 7 of s. 14
the Special Judge has to "pass a. simple money decree
for such amount, together with auy costs which he
may allow in respect ofproceedings in his court and of
proceedings in any civil court stayed under the provisions of this Act, together with pendente lite and
future interest at a rate not greater· than the rate
specified in s. 27." It was in view of this provision
that the special .Judge and the High Court allowed
interest at the rate of 4% per annum. The proper
decree the Special Judge should have passed therefore
was one for rupees two lakhs for the loan with permissible interest, plus Rs. 4,314-2-9, Rs, 51-3-0 and rupee
( 1) A.LR. 1939 Oudh 75.
Sardar
San1sher Singh
v.
Ua;a Sar,lar
l\'arain ~Others
August 8.
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[196 I]
one on account of costs, that is, for 11. total sum of
lls. 2,04,366-5-9 with proportionate costs with interest
pendente lite and future interest a.t the rate of 4 per
cent. per annum simple from tho date of the application, i.e., October 26, 1936, till realisation.
'
Accordingly, we allow tho appeal, set aside the
decree passed by the courts below and order t bat in
place of the decree made by the Trial Court be substituted a money decree in the terms as mentioned
above.
Tho appellant will get his costs in the appeal.
Appeal all-Owed.
BABU BARKYA THAKUR
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS.
(B. p_ SINHA, c. J., JA}'ER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Land Acquisilion--Preliminary notification-Land needed for
company-Non ·tnrnlion of public p11rpose-Lega!ity-Procudings,
if violate f11ndamrntal rights-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of
1894),
ss. 4, 5A, 6, 40-Co1>stitution of India,
Arts. 19(r)(j), 3r.
By a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, the State of Bombay (now }!aharashtra) sought to acquire
certain lands, including those o( the petitioner, which were likely to be needed by a company, manufacturing steel bars and
rods, for its factory and buildings and appointed a Special Land
Acquisition Officer to !unction as a Collector under s .. 5A of the
Act.
The petitioner by an objection filed before the said officer
denied that the lands were required for a public purpose and
prayed that the proceedings be quashed.
By his petition to this
Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner challenged the legality of the notification under s. 4 of the Act on the
ground that it did not in tern1s say that the acquisition \\'as for
a public purpose, and that the acquisition proceedings infringed
Arts. 19 and 31 of the Constitution.
Held, that it is not essential that a notification under s. 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should expressly state that
I