P. Ammaniamma vs Fattikonda Muddappa and Others

Wadsworth, J.—This appeal arises out of a decree on a promissory note executed by defendants 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The decree was passed

on 7th March 1933 for a sum of Rupees 11,668-10-6 together with Rs. 1292-11-0 as costs. There were ten defendants in all, the other

defendants being the sons of the executants. During the years 1935 and 1936 sums totaling Rs. 3250 were paid towards the decree and are

credited in the present execution petition which was filed on 9th August 1941. The balance claimed amounting to RS. 13,682-9-6 was sought as

against defendants 1 to 3 alone. The execution was resisted on the basis of a story of payment made to defendant 5 who is alleged to have satisfied

the decree, though no such satisfaction was recorded; and it is alleged that the decree-holder is now executing the decree at the instance of

defendant 5. The main question is whether it is open to the appellant to put forward such a contention having regard to the terms of Order 21, Rule

2, Civil P.C. Order 21, Rule 2 (3), states that

a payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree.

In substance the appellant is seeking to put forward an uncertified adjustment of the decree. We have not been referred to any authority for the

view to which the lower Court refers that the Court should inquire into the matter when the plea is that the decree has been completely discharged

and there is no executable decree in existence. It seems to us apparent that the prohibition of the recognition of any uncertified payment or

adjustment applies just as much to a total discharge as to a partial discharge. In this view we do not think it necessary to go into the evidence which

the lower Court has taken, and we dismiss the appeal with costs.