Appropriation of payments and mortgage interest rules upheld where no binding condition or statutory ceiling breach was shown.

Where mortgagors deposited money in court without proof that the mortgagees accepted a condition that it be applied only to principal, the ordinary rule applied and the payments were first appropriated to interest and costs. The decree for interest at 4% per annum was upheld because the earlier modification did not reduce the post-10 November 1946 rate. The objection under section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934 also failed, as the interest awarded did not exceed the principal. The Custodian's objection to the decree absolute for sale was rejected because inter se rights in the mortgagee firm were not relevant at that stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether amounts deposited in court by the mortgagors were to be appropriated first towards principal on the basis of unilateral recitals in the deposit applications. (ii) Whether the mortgagees were not entitled to interest at 4% per annum after the relevant modification of the decree. (iii) Whether the decree for interest offended the statutory ceiling under section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934. (iv) Whether the Custodian of Evacuee Property could resist the decree absolute for sale on the footing that only one partner of the mortgagee firm should be recognised.

Issue (i): Whether amounts deposited in court by the mortgagors were to be appropriated first towards principal on the basis of unilateral recitals in the deposit applications.

Analysis: The deposits were made under Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but there was no proof that the mortgagees were informed that the deposits were made only towards principal or that they accepted any such condition. In the absence of proof of an agreement binding the mortgagees, the ordinary rule applied that payments on a debt carrying interest are first adjusted towards interest and costs and only thereafter towards principal.

Conclusion: The plea of appropriation exclusively towards principal failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the mortgagees were not entitled to interest at 4% per annum after the relevant modification of the decree.

Analysis: The earlier order modifying the decree was read as fixing the manner of calculation for the specified period only. It did not reduce the rate of interest for the period after 10 November 1946, and there was no basis for construing it as restoring a 3% rate for the later period.

Conclusion: The challenge to the award of interest at 4% per annum failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the decree for interest offended the statutory ceiling under section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934.

Analysis: Section 9 prohibits a court from decreeing arrears of interest exceeding the principal of the loan. Here the decree awarded interest of Rs. 746-30 on a principal sum of Rs. 33,866-51, and therefore the statutory ceiling was not breached.

Conclusion: The objection based on section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934 was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether the Custodian of Evacuee Property could resist the decree absolute for sale on the footing that only one partner of the mortgagee firm should be recognised.

Analysis: At the stage of passing a decree absolute for sale, the Court was concerned only with the mortgage decree and not with the inter se rights of the mortgagees. The mortgagees' interest was adequately represented, and the question whether the evacuees or the Custodian was entitled to the money was left for determination in appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion: The objection of the Custodian did not bar the decree absolute for sale.

Final Conclusion: The mortgagors failed on all substantial grounds, and the decree in favour of the mortgagees was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of proof that the creditor accepted a conditional appropriation, payments on a debt carrying interest are first applied to interest and costs, and a decree for interest will not be upset where the statutory ceiling on arrears of interest is not exceeded.

---