IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 RSA.NO. 919 OF 2010() --------------------- {IN AS.31/2008 OF II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM IN OS.369/2000 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT, TRIVANDRUM} .................... APPELLANT(S):(APPELLANT-DEFENDANT) ----------------------------------------------- PUSHAPALATHA,D/O.SAROJINI AMMA, MOTI GAS COMPANY, MELARANNOR,KARAMANA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT THARAVADU, NEAR TELEVISION CENTRE,KUDAPPANAKUNNU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH SRI.V.SANJEEV SRI.BINNY.A.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------ K.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAN,ASWATHY BHAVAN, NELLIPARAMBAVILA, VENGANOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.919 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below, in a suit for money, based on a cheque, is challenged in this appeal by the defendant. 2. The respondent/defendant instituted a suit claiming a sum of Rs.1,36,750/- towards the loan extended to the appellant/defendant for a sum of Rs.1 lakh by way of a cheque. The amount claimed in the plaint included the interest on the sum given as loan, calculating such interest at 18%. Though the defendant had disputed her liability, on the materials placed, both the courts found no merit in such denial, and the decree was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, as canvassed in his suit. The appeal was preferred with a petition to condone the delay. Notice on the petition for condonation of delay being given, the respondent has entered appearance. After condoning the delay, the appeal has come up for hearing on its entertainability. R.S.A.No.919 of 2010 :: 2 :: 3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that his challenge against the decree is confined to the interest awarded by the court on the suit claim, which according to the counsel, included interest on interest. The suit claim of Rs.1,36,750/- was claimed by the plaintiff including the interest at the rate of 18% till the date of filing of suit on the principal amount advanced as loan. However, both the courts below, overlooking that aspect, have granted a decree on such sum stated in the plaint awarding interest at 18% per annum till the passing of the decree from the date of the suit and also thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of the decree, till date of realisation. The interest so awarded is not only excessive, but, unconscionable and not justifiable, is the submission of the counsel. 4. The learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff fairly submitted that he does not stand in the way of modifying the interest awarded by the courts below, which cannot be approved or upheld under law. R.S.A.No.919 of 2010 :: 3 :: 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent, I find, no further enquiry on the rate of interest awarded by the courts below, which apparently was wrong, need be considered. So much so, the decree of the courts below shall stand modified to the effect that the interest will be confined only on the principal sum i.e., at the rate of 12% per annum on such principal sum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum on that principal sum till the date of realisation. Subject to the above modification, the decree of the court below is confirmed and the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.