Skip to content


State of Kerala Vs. Mahadeva Iyer Venkita Subramania Iyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.S. No. 525 of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1969Ker8
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rule 1 and 1(2)
AppellantState of Kerala
RespondentMahadeva Iyer Venkita Subramania Iyer
Appellant AdvocateGovernment Pleader
Respondent Advocate G. Viswanatha Iyer,; L. Manoharan and; S. Subramania Sar
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred and Varki Ousoph v. Nara
Excerpt:
- .....to deposit the balance amount as per the statement filed before the lower court by the respondent-decree-holder. the matter arises in relation to the execution o the decree pase-ed in l.a.r. no. 7 of 1959 awarding enhanced compensation to the plaintiff-decree-holder with interest on such amount from the date of taking possession of the property till the date of payment. this decree was passed on 20-3-1959. an execution petition was filed by the decree-holder on 29-1-1962 seeking to enforce the decree and realise the amount due to him thereunder. on 30-3-1962 the decree-holder was served with a memo dated 26-3-1962 filed by the learned government pleader on behalf of the state wherein it was stated that a sum of rs. 11,950.62 had been deposited into the court by the state on 12-1-1960 in.....
Judgment:

V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order passed by the lower Court directing it to deposit the balance amount as per the statement filed before the lower Court by the respondent-decree-holder. The matter arises in relation to the execution o the decree pase-ed in L.A.R. No. 7 of 1959 awarding enhanced compensation to the plaintiff-decree-holder with interest on such amount from the date of taking possession of the property till the date of payment. This decree was passed on 20-3-1959. An execution petition was filed by the decree-holder on 29-1-1962 seeking to enforce the decree and realise the amount due to him thereunder. On 30-3-1962 the decree-holder was served with a memo dated 26-3-1962 filed by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State wherein it was stated that a sum of Rs. 11,950.62 had been deposited into the Court by the State on 12-1-1960 in full discharge of the amount due to the decree-holder under the decree. It is not disputed that no notice had been taken out to the decree-holder intimating hi in of such deposit us is required under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 1 (2), C.P.C. The decree-holder therefore, contended that notwithstanding the deposit stated to have been so made, he is entitled to be paid interest till the date on which he was served with the memo referred to above, that is, till 30-3-1962. This contention was upheld by the Court below and it called upon the Slate to deposit the balance amount due to the decree-holder as per the calculation contained in the statement filed by the decree-holder. If interest is payable till the date of the service of the memo, the correctness of the figure mentioned in the statement filed by the decree-holder is not disputed by the Slate.

2. The only contention raised before me by the learned Government Pleader is that on the amount being deposited in Court, the interest automatically ceased to run, no matter whether or not notice of the deposit had been taken out to the decree-holder. In support of this contention, reliance was placed before me on a decision of the Nag-pur High Court reported in Laxminarayan Ganeshdas v. Ghasiram Dalchand Paliwal, AIR 1939 Nag 191. This decision does, no doubt, support the contention of the learned Government Pleader. But this view of the Nagpur High Court has not found favour with the other High Courts in India including the Travancore-Cochin High Court. Vide Ramaraya Shanboguo v. Shorbott Ven-kataramanayya, ILR 42 Mad 576 = (AIR 1919 Mad 445); Rangpur Raiyat Bank Ltd. v. Hesabuddin, AIR 1932 Cal 111; Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad v. Ambalal Trikamlal, AIR 1951 Bom 394; Janaki Amma Meenakshi Amma v. Mathiri, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 236, Vinayak Yeshwant Lad v. Shrikishan Chandmal Firm, AIR 1955 Madh Bha 126; and Varki Ousoph v. Nara-yanan Parameswara Panickor, AIR 1956 Trav-Co 46. All these rulings have taken the view that where interest is awarded by the decree on the decretal amount, the decree-holder is entitled to such interest until he receives notice of the payment into Court as provided in Clause (2) of Rule 1 of Order 21, Civil P. C. In the face of theexpress and mandatory provision contained in Clause (2), I am in respectful agreement with the view that interest will not cease to run merely by reason of the making of the deposit into Court unless it is followed up by the service of notice as required by Clause (2), and that is only when the fac-tum of deposit is brought to the knowledge of the decree-holder by service of such notice that the deposit will amount to payment within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 1. The contrary view taken by the Nagpur High Court cannot, with great respect, be regarded as correct.

3. The view taken by the Court belowis perfectly correct and calls for no interference by this Court. The appeal fails andis dismissed with costs.


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