Musalium Veetil Theyathil Mahammadunni vs Kudumpalath Padinhara Parambil Bava and Others

The parties have been litigating for a very small amount, unless (as seems probable from the District Munsif''s judgment) the real question at

issue between them was not that which is argued before us, but whether the one side or the other was entitled to the documents referred to in the

third issue.

Before us the only argument has had reference to the question whether the respondent had validly deposited u/s 83 of the Transfer of Property

Act the amount of the mortgage due to the appellant. The learned District Judge has held that there was a valid deposit. We find, however, that the

respondent put in a petition for deposit on the third of August 1910, and yet the sum was not deposited till the 10th of August and on that day he

brought into Court only the sum due as on the 3rd of August. This was clearly not the proper amount, and his deposit was consequently not valid

and technically the deposit cannot prevail so as to stop interest running u/s 84 of the Transfer of Property Act. We must, therefore, vaiy the decree

under appeal by allowing interest till redemption, for which we extend the time to three months from this date.

Both side have been in the wrong as to their attitude in the lower Courts, and neither has made any effort at meeting and minimising the question

at issue between them. We think the proper order as to costs will, therefore, be that the lower Appellate Court''s order for costs stand and to

make them bear their own costs in this Court. We order accordingly.

The memorandum of objections is dismissed without costs.