Hindu Rule Of Damdupat Does Not Apply To The State Of Andhra Pradesh For Any Money Transactions: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,48,402/-, principal being Rs. 70,000/- and interest comes to Rs. 1,78,402/-. In the plaint, it was contended that defendant borrowed an amount Rs. 70,000/- on 16.08.2000 and executed a registered mortgage deed and agreed to pay interest at 24% p.a. Since the defendant failed to repay the amount, a legal notice in 2011 was issued and subsequently a suit was filed. 

The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence passed preliminary decree fixing two months' time for redemption. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant filed the Appeal Suit before the District Judge. The first appellate Court, being final fact finding Court, after framing necessary points for determination, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the second appeal was filed.

Though the appellant who was the defendant contended that he was entitled for the benefit of Act 4 of 1938, he could not establish that he was an agriculturist. He could not produce any convincing and cogent evidence.

Another issue of law was whether Doctrine of Damdupat applies in state of Andhra Pradesh. The Rule of Dvaigunya or Damdupat is found in several smritis and dharmasastras of Hinduism. According to this rule, the amount of interest which can be recovered at any one time cannot exceed the principal amount.

The Court, with regard to applicability of Rule of Damdupat, relied on Suryapaga Ravikumar v. Pakkela Ramarao & Ors., 2009 in which the composite court of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that Rule of Damdupat had no application whatsoever to the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of any transactions.

Since there was no perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below, the High Court did not find any irregularity and illegality in the findings of fact recorded. Thus, the second appeal was dismissed as no interference of the Court under Section 100 was warranted.

Case Title: Edhellacheruvu Balarami Reddy Versus Edhellacheruvu Munaswamy Reddy

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 61

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment