Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Veerappa Chetti v. Adam Saw and others, 1873

[money lending]

Veerappa Chetti v. Adam Saw and others

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
13 February 1873
Source: The Times, 14 February, 1873

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Feb. 13.
(Present - The Lords Justices of Appeal, Sir B. Peacock, Sir M. Smith, Sir R. Collier, and Sir L. Peel.)
VEERAPPA CHETTI v. ADAM SAW AND OTHERS.
  This was an ex parte appeal from the Court of the Recorder of Moulmein. The decree was made on the 16th of January, 1872, and this case is worth noticing on account of the hearing of the appeal in so short a time after the decision of the Court below.
  Mr. Kay, Q.C., and Mr. Doyne were for the appellant.
  The suit was brought to recover 64,777 rupees as due to the appellant under the terms of an admitted agreement between him and three of the respondents which was guaranteed by the fourth respondent, who by a separate instrument pledged her whole estate to secure the due performance of the agreement.
  Mr. Kay addressed their Lordships at considerable length in support of the appeal, and was followed by Mr. Doyne beyond the usual hour of adjournment.
  Lord Justice James, on the conclusion of the argument, said their Lordships would carefully read the papers before they gave judgment.

Source: The Times, 15 February, 1873



VEERAPPA CHETTI v. FACEEROODEEN ADAM SAW AND OTHERS.
  This case, mentioned in The Times of Friday, was now decided. It disclosed some circumstances as to money-lending in India and the rate of interest charged. The appeal was ex parte as to the decree of the Recorder of Moulmein, which was pronounced on the 10th of January, 1872.  There were four defendants, a widow and two sons, and a daughter, a minor. The Recorder dismissed the two females from the suit, and made an order against the others for a considerable sum, with interest and costs. The plaintiff was described as a Hindoo money-lender, and had made advances of money on good interest to put an end, as was stated, to an "obstinate litigation" in the family, and further litigation ensued. In one instance the interest was charged at 18 per cent per annum, and in another at 9. The rate of interest allowed by the Court connected with this case was 6 per cent until payment made.
  Sir Barnes Peacock, in giving judgment, reviewed the facts, and alluded to the interest charged and the rate to be allowed. Their Lordships dismissed the two females from the suit, and from the fact of the defendants being Mahommedans, the case would be decided by the Mahommedan law.
  Their Lordships found that the plaintiff was entitled to 39,575 rupees, with interest as agreed upon at 9 per cent, and out of a further advance of 13,300 rupees, there would be no interest on 10,000, as there was no evidence when it was lent; but as to 3,300 rupees, the interest, as usual, would be 18 per cent. The Court allowed 6 per cent until payment after the institution of the suit. There would be no costs of the present appeal.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School