Skip to content


Narendra Chandra Lahiri Vs. Charu Chandra Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.63
AppellantNarendra Chandra Lahiri
RespondentCharu Chandra Singh
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 257 - payment of decree--decree-holder's death before instalment due--judgment-debtor to pay money into court or be liable for interest. - .....by instalments, that is to say, rs. 4,000 in falgun 1310 and, rs. 11,500 in kartik 1311. the decree-holder appears to have died soon after the decree was given. on the 15th march 1904, a sum of rs. 4,000 was paid by the judgment-debtor to the credit of the subordinate judge stating that as the decree-holder was dead and he did not know who the heirs were, he had brought the money in order that it should be paid into the credit of the subordinate judge. the 15th november 1904 was the date fixed for the next instalment. the balance was paid by the judgment-debtor on the 3rd november 1935. credit for all these monies has been given by the decree-holder's heir, who now represents him after having obtained a certificate under act vii of 1889.2. on the 17th april 1907, the heir of the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, dated the 1st July 1907, in execution case No. 155 of 1907. It appears that a decree was given in the terms of a solenamah under which the judgment-debtor was required to pay the whole of the decretal amount by instalments. He appears to have paid Rs. 3,000 in cash on the day when the solengmah was effected. He agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 15,500 by instalments, that is to say, Rs. 4,000 in Falgun 1310 and, Rs. 11,500 in Kartik 1311. The decree-holder appears to have died soon after the decree was given. On the 15th March 1904, a sum of Rs. 4,000 was paid by the judgment-debtor to the credit of the Subordinate Judge stating that as the decree-holder was dead and he did not know who the heirs were, he had brought the money in order that it should be paid into the credit of the Subordinate Judge. The 15th November 1904 was the date fixed for the next instalment. The balance was paid by the judgment-debtor on the 3rd November 1935. Credit for all these monies has been given by the decree-holder's heir, who now represents him after having obtained a certificate under Act VII of 1889.

2. On the 17th April 1907, the heir of the original decree-holder executed the decree, for interest for 11 months and 7 days, that is, from Aghran 1311 to 17th Kartik 1312. It appears that the Subordinate Judge has thrown out the objection of the judgment-debtor on the ground that, when he had paid Rs. 4,000 to the credit of the Subordinate Judge, he should have paid the balance in a similar manner on the instalments falling due. As he failed to do that the decree-holder's heir, who is now the decree-holder, is entitled to claim interest on the balance of the money for the period stated above. It is now contended that there is no provision of law authorising the judgment-debtor to pay money to the credit of the Subordinate Judge when the decree-holder is dead and there is no one to represent him. But we find that, under Section 257, Civil Procedure Code, which relates to the mode of payment of money under a decree, all money payable under a decree shall be paid in one of the three ways following, namely, (a) into the Court-whose duty is to execute the decree; or (b) out of Court to the decree-holder; or (c) otherwise as the Court which made the decree directs. There being a clear provision of law as to the mode of paying the money due under a decree, we are of opinion that, the judgment-debtor should have paid the money to the Court, or taken directions from the Court under Clause (c). As he has failed to do that he is liable to pay the interest.

3. For these reasons we dismiss the appeal with costs. We assess the hearing fee at three gold mohurs.


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