Mortgage debt survives later promissory note; unpaid interest may merge into principal, but compound interest from suit date was restricted.

A promissory note executed as additional security for the same debt does not extinguish an existing mortgage; the mortgage debt ends only on payment and cancellation of the mortgage deed. Where the contract provides that unpaid interest may be debited and treated as part of the amount due, that sum may be treated as principal for post-suit interest under Order 34 Rule 11(a)(i) CPC, but compound interest from the date of suit is not allowed as of course. The Court also granted the defendants time to pay the decretal amount by instalments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the execution of a promissory note in respect of the same debt extinguished the earlier mortgage transaction. (ii) Whether interest could be awarded on the decretal amount inclusive of unpaid interest under Order 34, Rule 11(a)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (iii) Whether the defendants were entitled to pay the decretal amount by instalments.

Issue (i): Whether the execution of a promissory note in respect of the same debt extinguished the earlier mortgage transaction.

Analysis: The mortgage debt could come to an end only on payment of the mortgage money and return or cancellation of the mortgage deed. Mere execution of a promissory note, particularly where it operates as an additional security and acknowledgment of dues, does not wipe out the mortgage or the liability created by it.

Conclusion: The mortgage transaction was not extinguished by the later promissory note, and this contention failed against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether interest could be awarded on the decretal amount inclusive of unpaid interest under Order 34, Rule 11(a)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The contractual clause authorised the Bank to calculate interest at rests and, if unpaid, to debit it to the account and treat it as part of the amount due. Unpaid interest merged into the principal by the contract, so the amount due on the date of the suit could be treated as principal for the purpose of post-suit interest. At the same time, compound interest was not to be allowed from the date of the suit where the Court was exercising discretion under the rule.

Conclusion: The award of interest on the amount found due prior to suit was upheld, but compound interest from the date of suit was not permitted.

Issue (iii): Whether the defendants were entitled to pay the decretal amount by instalments.

Analysis: Having regard to the financial position of the defendants and the circumstances of the case, the Court granted time and structured payment by instalments in lieu of immediate execution.

Conclusion: Instalment relief was granted in modified form.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of the modified instalment arrangement and the restriction against compound interest from the date of suit, while the decree was otherwise maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A promissory note executed as additional security does not extinguish an existing mortgage debt, and where the contract validly merges unpaid interest into principal, the amount so calculated may bear post-suit interest under the Court's discretion, though compound interest from the date of suit is not to be allowed as of course.

---