Case: P. S. L. Ramanathan Chettiar &amp; Ors Vs. O. Rm. P. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar

need to mention expressly revenue tax or cess or liability arising out of a breach of trust or in respect of maintenance under a decree of court or otherwise" in S. 4. 10. The plea of the decree-holder which succeeded before the High Court cannot therefore be accepted. 11. It was however argued that the decree had been satisfied already and as such S. 16, Cl. (iii) of Madras Act XX-III of 1948 was applicable. That section for our purpose runs as follows :"The amendment made by this Act shall apply to the following suits and proceedings, namely: (i) * * * * * (ii) * * * * * (iii) all suits and proceedings in which the decree or order passed has not been executed or satisfied in full before the commencement of this Act. * * * * * *" It was argued that as the full amount of the decree had been put in court before 1948, the judgment-debtors could not apply for scaling down thereafter. In this connection, reliance was placed on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chowthmull Maganmull v. Calcutta Wheat and Seeds Association, ILR 51 Cal 1010 = (AIR 1925 Cal 416 ). There the, defendant-appellant had appealed from a decree for Rs. 21,850/with interest and costs passed against it and on the respondents taking steps to execute the decree had obtained an order for stay of execution thereof on depositing the said sum in court as security to the credit of the suit. Thereafter an order was made adjudicating the appellants as insolvents. The Official Assignee did not proceed with the appeal and the respondent applied for the appeal being dismissed and the money being paid over to them. The Official Assignee claimed the money as belonging to the insolvents estate and for the benefit of the general body of creditors. It was held that the effect of the order of August 29, 1923 directing stay of execution on terms of a deposit being made was that "the money was paid into Court to give security to the plaintiff that in the event of their succeeding in the appeal they should obtain the fruits of their success" and the "money which was paid into court belonged to the party who might he eventually found entitled to the sum." On the other hand there is a decision of the Bombay High Court in Keshavlal v. Chandulal, 37 Bom LR 200 = (AIR 1935 Bom 200 ) where a judgment-debtor had obtained an order for stay of execution of the decree on his depositing the decretal amount in court. Later on the application of the judgment-debtor the deposit was invested in Government promissory notes which appreciated in value by the time the appeal was heard. The appeal resulted in a small sum being disallowed from the decree whereupon the judgment-debtor applied for a return of the investment to him on his paying into court the amount due under the decree. But the decree-holder claimed the securities which represented the decretal amount at the time the deposit was made. On behalf of the decree-holder reference was made to the above judgment of the Calcutta High Court. There distinguishing the Calcutta judgment, Macklin, J. said that the amount in court "was primarily a deposit of security rather than a deposit of the decretal debt, and the decree-holder cannot claim it as his own unless the judgment-debtor fails to satisfy the decree by the payment of the money due under the decree." 12. On principle, it appears to us that the facts of a judgment-debtors depositing a sum in court to purchase peace by way of stay of execution of the decree on terms that the decree-holder can draw it out on furnishing security, does not pass title to the money to the decree-holder. He can if he likes take the money out in terms of the order, but so long as he does not do it, there is nothing to prevent the judgment-debtor from taking it out by furnishing other security, say, of immovable property, if the court allows him to do so and on his losing the appeal putting the decretal amount in court in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 C. P. C. in satisfaction of the decree. 13. The real effect of deposit of money in court as was done in this case is to put the money beyond the reach of the parties pending the disposal of the appeal. The decree-holder could only take it out on furnishing security which means that the payment was not in satisfaction of the decree and the security could he proceeded against by the judgment-debtor in case of his success in the appeal. Pending the determination of the same, it was beyond the reach of the judgment-debtor. 14. The observations in Chowthmulls case, ILR 51 Cal 1010 = (AIR 1925 Cal 416 ) (supra) do not help the respondent. In that case, the appeal was not proceeded with by the Official Assignee. Consequently, the decree-holder could not be deprived of the money which had been put into court to obtain stay of execution of the decree as but for the order, the decree-holder could have levied execution and obtained satisfaction of the decree- even before the disposal of the appeal. 15. The last contention raised on behalf of the respondent was that at any rate the decree-holder cannot claim any amount by way of interest after the deposit of the money in court. There is no substance in this point because the deposit in this case was not unconditional and the decree-holder was not free to withdraw it whenever he liked even before the disposal of the appeal. In case he wanted to do so, he had to give security in terms of the order. The deposit was not in terms of Order 21, Rule 1 C. P. C. and as such, there is no question of the stoppage of interest after the deposit.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued that the word debt implied a preexisting loan and as such it could not apply to a deposit. The definition in S. 3 (iii) clearly negatives such a proposition. If loans alone were meant to be covered by the use of the word debt, there was no reason to exclude rent from the purview of the expression. In that case there would have been no need to mention expressly revenue tax or cess or liability arising out of a breach of trust or in respect of maintenance under a decree of court or otherwise" in S. 412. On principle, it appears to us that the facts of a judgment-debtors depositing a sum in court to purchase peace by way of stay of execution of the decree on terms that the decree-holder can draw it out on furnishing security, does not pass title to the money to the decree-holder. He can if he likes take the money out in terms of the order, but so long as he does not do it, there is nothing to prevent the judgment-debtor from taking it out by furnishing other security, say, of immovable property, if the court allows him to do so and on his losing the appeal putting the decretal amount in court in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 C. P. C. in satisfaction of the decree13. The real effect of deposit of money in court as was done in this case is to put the money beyond the reach of the parties pending the disposal of the appeal. The decree-holder could only take it out on furnishing security which means that the payment was not in satisfaction of the decree and the security could he proceeded against by the judgment-debtor in case of his success in the appeal. Pending the determination of the same, it was beyond the reach of the judgment-debtor14. The observations in Chowthmulls case, ILR 51 Cal 1010   = (AIR 1925 Cal 416  ) (supra) do not help the respondent. In that case, the appeal was not proceeded with by the Official Assignee. Consequently, the decree-holder could not be deprived of the money which had been put into court to obtain stay of execution of the decree as but for the order, the decree-holder could have levied execution and obtained satisfaction of the decree- even before the disposal of the appeal15. The last contention raised on behalf of the respondent was that at any rate the decree-holder cannot claim any amount by way of interest after the deposit of the money in court. There is no substance in this point because the deposit in this case was not unconditional and the decree-holder was not free to withdraw it whenever he liked even before the disposal of the appeal. In case he wanted to do so, he had to give security in terms of the order. The deposit was not in terms of Order 21, Rule 1 C. P. C. and as such, there is no question of the stoppage of interest after the deposit.