Chandra Reddy, C.J.
(1) The question that calls for decision in this appeal is whether interest should continue to run even after the deposit of the decretal amount was made into Court at the instance of the appellant.
(2) The appellant obtained a decree against defendants 7 and 8 (respondents herein) inter alia for a sum of Rs. 5,308-4-7 and Rs. 1,493-3-8 respectively in O. S. No. 141 of 1950 on the file of the Sub Court, Rajamundry. Against the decree, both the defendants preferred an appeal and applied for stay of execution of the decree. The appellant opposed this application and alternatively suggested that as a condition of the stay being granted, the decretal amount should be deposited in Court, which she would withdrew on furnishing security. Stay of the decree was ordered on the condition indicated above, and the respondent, accordingly deposited the money. The appellant could not withdraw the amount as she could not furnish security. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed.
(3) Thereafter the appellant sought to recover a sum of Rs. 2,418-14-8 as representing interest from the date of deposit into Court up to the date of the passing of the final decree. This was resisted by the respondents on the ground that interest had ceased to run on the amount from the date of the deposit into Court. This objection did not weigh with the Subordinate Judge, Rajamundry, who directed payment of the sum claimed. On appeal by the unsuccessful judgment-debtors, Justice Sanjeeva Rao Nayudu reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the petition for recovery of this interest.
(4) In this appeal, under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent, it is this view of the learned Judge that is impractical before us. It is urged by Shri Jagannadha Rao on behalf of the appellant that since this money was not available to the appellant unconditionally, that is, since she could not withdraw it without furnishing security, the respondents' liability to pay interest did not come to an end. In support of this proposition reliance is placed by him on Periakaruppan v. Veerappa Chettiar, ILR 1944 Mad 336 : (AIR 1944 Mad 46). In that case, immediately after the decree was passed, the judgment-debtor deposited the decretal amount into Court with a request that the decree-holder should be asked to withdraw it on furnishing security. The decree-holder could not draw it out as he had no means of furnishing security; with the result, the money continued in deposit. It was in these circumstances, the learned Judges rule that interest did not cease to run, since it was the judgment-debtor who unasked deposited the money into Court to get a stay of execution of the decree. We do not think that this case comes to the rescue of the appellant, since it was at this instance the money had to be deposited into Court.
(5) In this connection, we might cite a judgment of the Madras High Court in South Indian Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Mayilvahanam, (1942) 2 Mad LJ 803 : (AIR 1943 Mad 334). In that case, there was a decree against the South Indian Railway Co., Ltd., and the judgment-debtor obtained an interim stay of execution and when the stay petition cam on for final hearing, stay was made absolute on condition that money was deposited by the company and the plaintiff was given leave to draw it on furnishing security. The decree-holder being a minor, the Court was bound under O. XXXII, R. 6, to direct the security should be given by his guardian or next friend. The money could not be withdrawn as security could not be furnished. The question then arose whether the judgment-debtor had to pay interest on this amount notwithstanding the deposit. This was answered in the negative as the Court took the view that the Railway Company had done nothing to hamper the decree-holder.
(6) In our opinion, the doctrine of the South Indian Rly. Co. Ltd., 1942-2 Mad LJ 803 : (AIR 1943 Mad 334) is applicable to the instant case. We think that the person who was responsible for the money being deposited into Court and who allowed it to lie in Court should bear the loss in the shape of interest. If the decree-holder was mainly responsible for the money being brought into Court, interest ceases to run from the date of the deposit; if, on the other hand the judgment-debtor, as in the case of ILR (1944) Mad 336 : (AIR 1944 Mad 46), had voluntarily deposited the money into Court with a request that the decree-holder should be called upon to draw it out on furnishing security and if the decree-holder is unable to comply with this request, interest does not cease to run on the decretal amount. Since this case fails under the first category, there is not liability on the part of the respondent to pay interest subsequent to the deposit.
(7) In these circumstances, we think the judgment under appeal could not be successfully assailed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs throughout.
HM/ MRG/ R.G.D
(8) Appeal dismissed.