Skip to content


A. Shanmugappa Vs. A. Mariappa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.267a
AppellantA. Shanmugappa
RespondentA. Mariappa and ors.
Excerpt:
cause of action - right to sue--payment to decree-holder--not certified--subsequent payment to attaching creditor. - - it is argued that the cause of action arose when the defendant failed to certify payment and reliance is placed on the decision reported in in the matter of medai thalavoi kaliani anni 30 m......the 2nd and the 3rd defendants from the plaintiff alone was due. the latter undertook to enter up satisfaction of the decree in so far as it directed payment of money (j) and the plaintiff undertook to prove the payment of rs. 2,222-4-0 which they alleged they paid the 1st defendant whenever it might become necessary (vii). the first defendant in a letter to defendants nos. 2 and 3 denied having received this sum from the plaintiffs ix. this was forwarded to the plaintiffs viii in january 1904. the plaintiffs then applied to this court after notice to 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants to have satisfaction entered up by the 2nd and 3rd defendants as agreed to by them. this application was rejected on the ground that the 2nd and 3rd defendants have entered up satisfaction so far as the payments.....
Judgment:

Sankarn Nair, J.

1. The 1st defendant, as the decree-holder in O.S. No. 15 of 1893, was entitled to get from the plaintiffs, the judgment-debtors, the sum of Rs. 7,735. Between the 29hh October 1901 and the 25th February 1902, he was paid the sum of Rs. 1,700. (A series B and C). On the 1st November 1902, the 1st defendant acknowledged that the amount remaining due to him under the decree was only Rs. 1,893-0-9. The 2nd and 3rd defendants decree-holders of the 1st defendant attached this decree and demanded payment from the plaintiffs (B) and they agreed to recognise any payments that may have been made to the 1st defendant (F. & G.). They received from the plaintiffs on the 2nd January 1904, a sum of Rs. 1,140-11-5. (K.F. 2 shows how this was arrived at) and granted the; Receipt (4) on the 2nd January 1904 in which it is recited that out of the amount of Rs. 3,717-12-9, which was due to 1st defendant, under the decree on 1st October 1901, the plaintiffs have paid him Rs. 2,222-4-0 and there was a sum of Rs. 454-13-4 due by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff and the amount aforesaid received on that date by the 2nd and the 3rd defendants from the plaintiff alone was due. The latter undertook to enter up satisfaction of the decree in so far as it directed payment of money (J) and the plaintiff undertook to prove the payment of Rs. 2,222-4-0 which they alleged they paid the 1st defendant whenever it might become necessary (VII). The first defendant in a letter to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 denied having received this sum from the plaintiffs IX. This was forwarded to the plaintiffs VIII in January 1904. The plaintiffs then applied to this Court after notice to 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants to have satisfaction entered up by the 2nd and 3rd defendants as agreed to by them. This application was rejected on the ground that the 2nd and 3rd defendants have entered up satisfaction so far as the payments to them were concerned and nothing more could be done, The 4th defendant, another decree-holder of the 1st defendant, again attached the decree and the plaintiffs had to pay the sum of Rs. 2,677-1-4 to him in July 1907 on account of the default of the other defendants to certify satisfaction. The plaintiffs, therefore, now claim damages. The 4th defendant is not liable. Even if he knew that the plaintiffs had discharged the decree, he only exercised his legal right to recover his money.

2. Nor do I see any cause of action against defendants Nos. 2 and 3. They certified payment of the amount received by them. It was the plaintiff's business to compel 1st defendant to certify, satisfaction, not theirs. So far as the 1st defendant is concerned, the question is whether the claim is barred by limitation. It is argued that the cause of action arose when the defendant failed to certify payment and reliance is placed on the decision reported in In the matter of Medai Thalavoi Kaliani Anni 30 M. 545 : 3 M.L.T. 15. I am of opinion that the suit is not barred. It is true that when a judgment-debtor pays out of Court the decree amount, there is an obligation on the part of the decree-holder to report satisfaction to the Court. The consideration for the payment is certifying payment as the judgment is to discharge the decree-debt and the decree-holder is, therefore, bound to take the necessary steps to give a proper discharge, otherwise the decree still remains capable of execution by the decree-holder or any other attaching decree-holder. The payment, therefore, must be treated as having been made without consideration and the judgment-debtor is entitled to get back the money so paid.

3. But the cause of action here is different. In a suit for damages, the cause of action arises only when damage is sustained. In this case the plaintiff was compelled to pay the 4th defendant a certain sum of money on account of the 1st defendant's default in certifying payment. The cause of action only arose when he had to pay the money. In the 1st case, the amount recoverable is what the judgment-debtor paid the decree-holder of his decree-debt; in the 2nd case, it is the amount, paid the 2nd time, which may be very different and possibly a far smaller amount.

4. I dimiss the suit against the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with costs.

5. I give the plaintiff a decree for the sum of Rs. 2,677-1-4, the amount paid by him to the 4th defendat, with interest at 9 per cent, from July 1907, the date of payment to the date of the decree and 6 per cent, future interest. The plaintiff will get his costs from the 1st defendant.


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