Skip to content


Wana Ravji Vs. Natu Murha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 88 of 1910
Judge
Reported in(1910)12BOMLR818
AppellantWana Ravji
RespondentNatu Murha
Excerpt:
.....april 1909, the payment was made into court on the 14th april 1909. the lower courts held that as the money had by the terms of the decree to be paid to the defendants, the plaintiff: had no option to pay it into court; and that, therefore, the payment into court was not in compliance with the terms of the decree :-;that rule of order xxi of the civil procedure code, 1908, provided that all money payable under a decree should be paid into court or out of court to the decree-holder. the rule enacted that payment into court is a valid compliance with a decree even though the decree directed payment to the decree-holder. - - that she chose the latter method and as the court was closed from 10th to 13th april and she paid into court on the 14th it is a good payment and a valid performance..........that ' all money payable under a decree shall be paid ' ' into court,' or ' out of court to the decree-holder.' it intends to enact and does enact, that payment into court is a valid compliance with a decree, even though the decree directs payment to the decree-holder. the ordinary form of money decree directs payment to the decree-holder. (see forms 1 and 2 of appendix d in the first schedule to the code). payment into court under such a decree is regarded, and in my opinion rightly regarded, as a compliance with the decree. i say nothing as to what the law would be if the decree required that payment should be to the decree-holder and not otherwise. the decree is not in that form. therefore i think that had it been possible to pay into court on the 10th april, such a payment would.....
Judgment:

Heaton, J.

1. The decree with which we are here concerned stated as follows: 'The property in dispute belongs to the plaintiff by right of ownership. In the present matter the plaintiff should by the 10th day of April in the year 1909 pay to the defendants in all Rs. 100, namely, one hundred for costs &c.; If the moneys are not paid by the plaintiff as agreed upon the property in dispute will remain with the defendants by right of ownership and the plaintiff will have no right of ownership over the same.'

2. The payment required was not made on or before the 10th April, but was made into Court on the 14th April. On these facts both the lower Courts have held that the payment was not in time and was not of avail to satisfy the requirements of the decree. The plaintiff, who has appealed, urges that she had the option of paying to the defendants or of paying into Court: that she chose the latter method and as the Court was closed from 10th to 13th April and she paid into Court on the 14th it is a good payment and a valid performance of what the decree requires.

3. The reasoning of the appellate Court was that the money had by the terms of the decree to be paid to the defendants : that the plaintiff had no option to pay into Court. In this the District Judge, in my opinion, was wrong. Rule 1 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that ' all money payable under a decree shall be paid ' ' into Court,' or ' out of Court to the decree-holder.' It intends to enact and does enact, that payment into Court is a valid compliance with a decree, even though the decree directs payment to the decree-holder. The ordinary form of money decree directs payment to the decree-holder. (See Forms 1 and 2 of Appendix D in the first Schedule to the Code). Payment into Court under such a decree is regarded, and in my opinion rightly regarded, as a compliance with the decree. I say nothing as to what the law would be if the decree required that payment should be to the decree-holder and not otherwise. The decree is not in that form. Therefore I think that had it been possible to pay into Court on the 10th April, such a payment would have discharged the obligation imposed on the plaintiff by the decree. It was not possible, for the Court was closed on that day. Therefore, I think, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act (Act X of 1897) comes into play and that the payment on the 14th April ' the next day afterwards on which the Court was open ' was just as good a payment as would have been a payment our 10th April, had the Court been open on that day.

4. Therefore I think the orders of the Courts below were wrong, that they must be reversed and the original Court directed to dispose of the application according to law. Costs to be costs in the Darkhast.

Chandavarkar, J.

5. I concur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //