Skip to content


Sultan Moideen Vs. Savalayammal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad343
AppellantSultan Moideen
RespondentSavalayammal and anr.
Cases ReferredSee Tarruck Chunder Buttacharjee v. Divendro Nath Sanyal I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, sections 231, 258--joint decree--execution application for--uncertified payment to one decree-holder. - .....the disposal of the case. a further finding is also necessary as to what was the share to which appaji chetti is entitled as between him and the first plaintiff savalayammal. the payment made to appaji chetti can be held valid only to the extent of his share to which he is entitled:--see tarruck chunder buttacharjee v. divendro nath sanyal i.l.r. 9 cal. 831 with the decision in which case we agree.2. as to the contention that the application made by savalayammal for execution of the whole decree was premature, we are unable to rule that the first instalment was paid in conformity with the direction contained in the decree.3. the payment was not certified by appaji chetti to have been received by him on behalf of both judgment-creditors, and it appears that he has applied the whole of.....
Judgment:

1. The finding is that the sum of Rs. 1,100 was paid by the defendant to Appaji Chetti, one of two decree-holders. This rinding is, however, not sufficient for the disposal of the case. A further finding is also necessary as to what was the share to which Appaji Chetti is entitled as between him and the first plaintiff Savalayammal. The payment made to Appaji Chetti can be held valid only to the extent of his share to which he is entitled:--See Tarruck Chunder Buttacharjee v. Divendro Nath Sanyal I.L.R. 9 Cal. 831 with the decision in which case we agree.

2. As to the contention that the application made by Savalayammal for execution of the whole decree was premature, we are unable to rule that the first instalment was paid in conformity with the direction contained in the decree.

3. The payment was not certified by Appaji Chetti to have been received by him on behalf of both judgment-creditors, and it appears that he has applied the whole of the money for his own use. Having regard to Section 231 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a payment made out of Court to one of several joint creditors, and not certified by him as having been received or applied for the benefit of all, cannot be regarded as made in satisfaction of the decree, except for the purpose of determining what order should be passed under Section 231.

4. The District Judge should, therefore, ascertain what is the share due to Appaji Chetti, and, giving credit for the amount thus ascertained, execute the decree in favour of Savalayammal for the balance.

5. If Appaji Chetti's share should exceed Rs. 1,100, the District Judge will, of course, make such order as may be necessary to protect his interest as regards such excess.

6. The costs incurred hitherto to abide and follow the result.


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