Skip to content


Ranganayaki Alias Meenakshi Ammal Vs. L. Bapu Iyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.O. No. 191 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1961Mad159; (1960)IIMLJ270
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 24, Rule 3
AppellantRanganayaki Alias Meenakshi Ammal
RespondentL. Bapu Iyer
Appellant AdvocateP.S. Srisailam, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Amudachari and ;A.V. Raghavan, Advs.
DispositionAppeal partly allowed
Cases Referred and Piaramal v. Shamdas
Excerpt:
- .....court confirmed the decree, in so far as it related to the sum of rs. 10,500.from time to time the decreeholder withdrew portions of the amount deposited in court; but because of the condition requiting her to furnish security, she was not able to withdraw the whole amount. she was able to withdraw the balance finally on 30-9-1954, that is to say, after the high court had disposed of the appeal. the decree-holder filed an execution petition, in which she claimed interest on the amount which lay in court and which she could not draw, owing to her inability to furnish security. the subordinate judge disallowed this claim for interest. the decree-holder appeals from that order. the claim for interest is the only point that was pressed before me.2. it seems to me that, in this case, the.....
Judgment:

Balakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. In O. S. No. 20 of 1948, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, one Renganayaki alias Meenakshi Ammal obtained a decree on 8-8-1950 for, among other things, a sum of Rs. 10,500. From the decree, the defendant preferred an appeal, A. S. No. 556 of 1950, on the file of this Court. He also filed a C. M. P. for stay of execution. On 25th September 1950, the appellate court directed the judgment-debtor to deposit the money, & the decree-holder was permitted to withdraw it only on furnishing security. The deposit was made on 24th October 1950. On 22nd July 1954, the High Court confirmed the decree, in so far as it related to the sum of Rs. 10,500.

From time to time the decreeholder withdrew portions of the amount deposited in court; but because of the condition requiting her to furnish security, she was not able to withdraw the whole amount. She was able to withdraw the balance finally on 30-9-1954, that is to say, after the High Court had disposed of the appeal. The decree-holder filed an execution petition, in which she claimed interest on the amount which lay in court and which she could not draw, owing to her inability to furnish security. The Subordinate Judge disallowed this claim for interest. The decree-holder appeals from that order. The claim for interest is the only point that was pressed before me.

2. It seems to me that, in this case, the decree-holder was undoubtelly entitled to interest, When a debtor pays his creditor interest naturally ceases to run, because the debt is paid. Interest will also ordinarily cease to run, when the debtor tenders money to his creditor and the creditor improperly refuses to receive it. But, then, before interest can cease to run, the tender which is made, must be an unconditional tender. A creditor is not bound to accept a tender to which conditions or stipulations are attached.

When, in the present case, the judgment-debtor put the money into the court, and, on his invitation, the court passed an order that the decreeholder should draw it out only on furnishing security he was not making an unconditional tender. He was in effect only making a tender subject to conditions.

No creditor is bound to accept a tender to which conditions are attached. Mr. Amudachariar, on the other side, referred me to Order 24 Rule 3 which runs as follows:

'No interest shall be allowed to the plaintiff on any sum deposited by the defendant from the date of the receipt of such notice, whether the sum deposited is in full of the claim or falls short thereof.'

It seems to me that this rule will apply only where the decreeholder is in a position to take out the money, and is not prevented from doing so by any orders passed by the court, on the invitation of the judgment-debtor. In the present case, the court passed an order, requiring the decreeholder to furnish security before drawing out the amount, and that condition was imposed on the motion of the judgment-debtor. To such a situation, Order 24 Rule 3 will not apply. The decision in Periakaruppa Chettiar v. Veerappa Chettiar : AIR1944Mad46 , Mooka Naicker v. Venkatasami Naidu, : AIR1950Mad807 and Piaramal v. Shamdas, AIR 1936 Lah. 76 support the view I am taking.

3. In the result, the appeal is allowed to this extent, the decreeholder will be entitled to interest only upto 22nd July 1954, when the High Court passed the decree and that too only on that part of the amount which was not withdrawn. There will be no interest on the amounts that were withdrawn. The appellant will be entitled to her costs in this appeal.


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