distinct grounds raised in appeal by assessee are two. It arises out of assessment for 1978-79. 2. Before mentioning about ground taken up, we may furnish some introductory facts. assessee owned estate of three villages, Bhayandar, Meera and Ghodbunder, in Thana Taluka of Thana District. They had been once devised in favour of Laxman Ramchandraji of Bombay by then British Government by means of grant made in 1870. assessee had acquired rights in estate in 1945. collector of Thana had recognised assessee as estate holder and its name had been registered in records of rights. Disputes started by advent of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which came into force on 28-12-1948. Government issued notification under said Act on 14-7-1949 applying provision of said Act to these lands of assessee. By another notification dated 19-12-1949, issued under provisions of same Act, it declared assessee as land owner of these agricultural lands and further assumed management of estate under section 44 of said Act, from 19-12-1949. State Government was, through its offices, actually recovering rents and profits from cultivators. assessee started legal action to collect income which Government had realised. first suit was in 1955 (Suit No. 123 of 1955) in Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Thana, and it was to obtain decree directing State of Bombay to render true and full account of its management of assessee's estate which was eventually decreed. decree became final since appeals preferred by Government of Bombay were dismissed. preliminary decree granted in favour of assessee directed that accounts be taken with regard to management of estate by Goverment. Court's decree was that assessee was entitled to collect amount found due upon taking accounts for period from 1-3-1952 to 11-4-1955. Thereafter, assessee instituted another suit in same Court (Civil Suit No. 272 of 1963) against State of Bombay (late designated as State of Maharashtra) to get defendant directed to render true and full account of estate managed by it for subsequent period, namely, from 11-4-1955 till surrender of estate to assessee. That suit was decreed in favour of assessee and final decree was passed on 4-9-1976 whereby State of Maharashtra was directed to pay Rs. 4,18,812 towards amount found due on account of management of estate plus interest on said sum at 6 per cent per annum from 11-4-1955 to 29-6-1972 and subsequent interest on principal amount at 6 per cent up to date of payment. 3. As per decree of Court dated 4-9-1976 interest recoverable by assessee from 11-4-1955 to 31-3-1977 aggregated to Rs. 3,51,047. 4. accounting year relevant to assessment for 1978-79 is from 1-8- 1976 to 31-7-1977. In assessment for 1978-79, interest of Rs. 3,51,047 was brought to charge on reason that assessee became entitled to receive this amount on date of decree (4-9-1976) and that income had, therefore, accrued in this year. In appeal also, Commissioner (Appeals) conclude in same way. Aggrieved by that, assessee has preferred this second appeal. 5. first contention of assessee was that principal amount found due by State of Maharashtra in civil litigation was income due or receivable by way of rent for agricultural lands and, as such, interest awarded thereon would also partake same character. authorities below rejected contention and held that interest income was susceptible to charge under Income-tax Act, 1961 irrespective of character of principal amount. first point raised in this appeal was to urge same contention before us. At hearing, it was submitted by Shri V. P. Mehta, learned counsel for assessee, that this point is not pressed. We, therefore, reject it as such. 6. other point is that interest of Rs. 3,51,047 is not income of this year as principal sum was consolidated figure of various years commencing from 1955 and it must be spread over. On this issue, authorities below have recorded finding against assessee holding that interest income accrued only when it was quantified and decreed by Court. authorities cited for our consideration by Shri Mehta were decision of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT v. A. B. V. Gowda [1986] 157 ITR 697; decision of Kerala High Court in case of Peter John v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 711 (FB) and decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT v. S. C. Angre [1986] 157 ITR 261. Shri Raju, arguing for department, relied upon decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Sadasiva Krishna Rao v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 270 and decision of Madras High Court in CIT v. P. Mariappa Gounder [1984] 147 ITR 676. 7. decision relied upon by Shri Mehta on K. Sadasiva Krishna Rao's case (supra) is case pertaining to interest awarded by Court while granting compensation for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On this question, High Courts of Karnataka, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh have taken view that same accrues from year to year and should be spread over and assessed in year to which interest relates. contrary view is expressed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Sadasiva Krishna Rao's c s e (supra), wherein it is held that interest receivable upon enhanced compensation is discretionary mater and, until awarded by Court, owner's right was only to make claim and that entire interest can be properly included in assessment year in which it was awarded by Court. P. Mariappa Gounder's case (supra) was case of mesne profits and their Lordships of Madras High Court have said that it must be included in year in which it was actually quantified by Court. 8. Accrual of interest receivable by person who has right to claim depends upon foundation of claim. claim could be different in each case. If it is recoverable on account of contractual liability then accrual depends upon point of time at which it is payable or actually paid and perhaps method of accounting of assessee may have some significance i n this behalf. However, we are not confronted with such situation since Shri Mehta conceded that interest awarded in this case was not on account of any agreement. court can grant interest on statutory authority. For instance, section 80 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, or section 61(1) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 there may also be cases where interest could be granted under provisions of Interest Act, 1893. Interest is also granted as damages for wrongful withholding of money of which person who had right to use had been deprived of. But these are all cases where it could be allowed on debts or certain sums. accrual in each case cannot be same. allowed on debts or certain sums. accrual in each case cannot be same. 9. Court can award interest on compensation amount awarded by Court for which statutory watermarks are sections 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act. Even if it is true position that accrual was only when amount was quantified by Court as held by Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was in recognition of statutory right of owner of land to claim interest and since case on hand is not one where interest was awarded on statutory authority, case law is not of real help. For these reasons, rule in cases cited by Shri Mehta also is not applicable. 10. plaint presented by assessee in Civil Suit No. 272 of 1963 and judgment of Court dated 4-9-1976 (copies) are in compilation. Commissioner's report (copy) on basis of which Court pronounced judgment is also in compilation. It was claim of assessee that State of Maharashtra who was managing estate was in position of trustee or agent and, as such, liable to account for management. In plaint, there was no specific prayer for award of interest (past or present). Neither there were averments in plaint to lay foundation to make claim for interest. However, there was general prayer for grant of such other reliefs to which assessee may be entitled in law. Court had got report of Commissioner in regard to probable income State of Maharashtra might have realised. State of Maharashtra had not produced any evidence to show outcome of management. Commissioner had, in his report, suggested that State of Maharashtra was liable to pay interest at 6 per cent year as accrued, by way of mesne profits, from 11-4-1955 to 29-5-1972. This suggestion for grant of mesne profits was plainly incorrect and inconsistent with claim made in plaint inasmuch as there could be no mesne profits as it was stand in that plaint that State Government was in position of trustee of manager. This has been rightly pointed out in paragraph 9 of judgment dated 4-9-1976. We may here mention that Court having not awarded interest as mesne profits, ruling in P. Mariappa Gounder's case (supra) cannot strictly be applied. Further, mesne are income of each year and it includes interest for that year in view of its definition in section 2(12) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Court could have not granted interest as damages (under section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872) as it was not case of breach of contract and claim was not for debt or certain sum. basis on which interest was granted by Court can be known from following area of judgment. It reads: "...... defendant can be asked to pay interest in respect of amount, as it wrongly withheld and retained amount which in fact out to have been given into hands of plaintiff and for that reason it can be also asked to pay interest on same. argument advanced on behalf of defendant for rejection of claim of interest does not appear to be tenable from any angle." Court could have refused interest since foundation had not been laid in pleading. It can be seen that interest was awarded as recompense for non-rendition of accounts of management by State of Maharashtra, and since Court, upon enquiry, determined particular sum as payable. In reality, it was one given on equitable consideration (if we say so) and in such case right can be said to have crystalised only when Court quantifies amount as payable exercising its discretion in favour of plaintiff (assessee). We are, therefore of view that accrual was when interest became certain tangible amount when judgment was pronounced in civil court, for all that Court could have in its discretion refused too. We, therefore, affirm findings of authorities below that accrual of interest was in this accounting year and addition made is, therefore, sustained. *** ESTATE INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER