Skip to content


Chelikani Sitaramayya Vs. Koppula Pedda Venkanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1941)2MLJ768
AppellantChelikani Sitaramayya
RespondentKoppula Pedda Venkanna
Excerpt:
- - the appellant is clearly not liable to pay interest in the circumstances......code of civil procedure applied and on this footing the respondent was entitled to recover any loss he might have suffered as the result of the first court's decree.3. we are unable to concur in the opinion of the learned judge that section 144 applies here. although there was no application for execution pending, the respondent applied for stay and he got the stay on certain terms. the terms' did not include the payment of the money into court. if he had furnished security in the form of immovable property, there would have been no question of payment of interest. he could also have guarded himself against loss by converting the money into government promissory notes, but he did not choose to do this and was content to leave the money lying in court. if the respondent has suffered any.....
Judgment:

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. In 1931 the appellant obtained a decree against the respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Peddapur for the payment of Rs. 2,948-15-8. The respondent appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada and was successful, the appellant's suit being dismissed with costs. While the appeal was pending, the appellant applied for the execution of the decree which he had obtained, but as the result of an arrangement with the respondent the application was dismissed on payment of costs. Apparently fearing that the appellant might institute further proceedings in execution, the respondent applied for a stay of execution. A stay was ordered on the condition that the respondent furnished security to the Court for the amount of the decree. It was not convenient for the respondent to furnish security in the form of immovable property and instead he deposited the sum of Rs. 2,948-15-8 in cash. On paying the money in, he asked the Court to direct that the decree-holder should only withdraw it on furnishing security and this the Court directed.

2. When the appeal was allowed, the respondent withdrew his money from the Court and at the same time applied for an order against the appellant directing him to pay interest thereon. The District Munsif refused to do so, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed his decision and awarded the respondent interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum. . The appellant then appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by Wadsworth, J., who with some hesitation agreed with the Subordinate Judge. Wadsworth, J., considered that the general principle embodied in Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied and on this footing the respondent was entitled to recover any loss he might have suffered as the result of the first Court's decree.

3. We are unable to concur in the opinion of the learned Judge that Section 144 applies here. Although there was no application for execution pending, the respondent applied for stay and he got the stay on certain terms. The terms' did not include the payment of the money into Court. If he had furnished security in the form of immovable property, there would have been no question of payment of interest. He could also have guarded himself against loss by converting the money into Government Promissory Notes, but he did not choose to do this and was content to leave the money lying in Court. If the respondent has suffered any loss, the blame must rest with him. The appellant is clearly not liable to pay interest in the circumstances.

4. The appeal is allowed with costs throughout.


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