History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.578

v4.c63.578

⁶⁹⁴ Vide *Balkrishna v. Gopal* I. L. R. 1 Bom. 73 (where it was held that the rule of dāmdupat should not be extended to apply to the amount recoverable in execution of the decree of a civil court), *Nanchand v. Bapusaheb* I. L. R. 3 Bom. 131 (held that the rule of dāmdupat does not apply when the defendant is a non-Hindu), *Gopal v. Gangaram* I. L. R. 20 Bom. 721 F. B. (the rule is excluded from mortgages the terms of which necessitate the existence of an account between the mortgagor and the mortgagee in possession about the rents and profits), *Sundarabai v. Jayawant* 1 Bom. L. R. 551, 555 (rule applies between all Hindu debtors and creditors both in respect of simple as well as mortgage debts), *Khimji v. Chunilal* 21 Bom. L. R. 419 (by agreement interest which does not exceed the principal may be capitalized). It is interesting to find that in ancient Egypt the legal maximum rate of interest was thirty per cent and it was forbidden to allow interest to increase beyond the double of the principal. Vide Wilkinson's 'Manners and Customs of the ancient Egyptians' (First Series), 1842, vol. II p. 50. Usury was condemned in ancient Egypt, among the Jews (vide Psalm XV. 5, Ezek. XVIII. 8 and 17, Lev. XXV. 36-37) and by the ancient smṛtis (as more heinous than even the murder of a brāhmaṇa, H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 124 n. 269).