Punjab State vs Ishar Singh and Others

This first appeal arises out of the execution proceedings and is filed by the judgment-debtor against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, in execution application No. 132/19 of 1965-73, passed on 3-4-1976.

The short facts of the case are that the Punjab State acquired the decree--holders'' land for the establishment of Agricultural University at Ludhiana. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the award on 8-2-1960. The Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 31-7-1964, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The amount of Rs. 57799.38 Paise was also paid to the decree--holders in the month of December, 1966.

It is admitted that the interest was awarded by the decree on the decretal amount. The question for determination in the circumstances is whether the interest on the compensation amount ceased from the date of its deposit in Court or not. The Court of first instance has held that it does not and the decree--holders are entitled to interest until they receive notice of payment in Court.

The learned counsel for the judgment--debtor--appellant, argues that the decretal amount paid in Court tant--amounts to payment to the decree--holders and as such the interest must cease from its deposit in the Court. This is just a bald submission of the counsel and it is not supported by any principle or precedent. Ishar Singh, decree--holder, appearing as R. W. 3 has deposed that he did not receive any notice regarding the deposit of the compensation amount in the Court and this contention of the decree--holder remains unrebutted. It seems that notice was not give through the Court to the decree--holders. At any rate the decree--holder--appellant, was unaware of the payment made into Court until December, 1966. Although, payment made under a decree in the Court, may operate as a satisfaction of the decree, it will, I think, be unreasonable to hold that merely because the payment is made in Court, therefore, interest should cease to run upon a decree which awards interest until its payment. We think O. 21 R. 1(1)(a) and O. 21 R. 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be read together and when so read, it is in our opinion clear that decree--holders would be entitled to claim interest until such time as and when they come to know of the payment made in the Court. This construction is in consonance with the considerations of equity. The deposit of decretal amount in the Court quietly by the judgment--debtor and then leaving it to the decree--holder to discover it for himself, would more or less amount to a game of hide--and--seek, and, of course, the Court of law is not a playground for litigants. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Ambalal Trikamlal, and Janaki Amma v. Mathiri AIR 1952 TC 236 in which it is held that interest will not cease to run on the amount deposited in Court until decree--holder gets notice of the deposit.

The case of the decree--holder was that the possession of the land was taken by the Collector on or about 1-4-1960 and as such the judgment-debtor was liable to pay interest from that date. Ishar Singh, decree--holder and his witnesses, namely Bhajan Singh and Madan Lal have consistently stated that the possession of the land was taken soon after the award of the Collector, dated 8-2-1960 and their plea also finds support from the award of the Collector. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly found that the decree--holders were entitled to interest at the rate of 4% to be calculated from 1-4-1960. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the decree--holders were wrongly paid Rs. 839.50 Paise for Khasra Nos. 348 and 349 by the Collector. Ludhiana in the year 1960. According to him, this amount was to be refunded by them with interest and that the learned Additional District Judge has not taken this point into account while calculating the compensation due to the decree-holders. I find slender force in his argument. The learned Additional District Judge has gone into this matter. It has been observed in his order that the decree-holders had submitted their claim after deducting the amount of Rs. 926.06 Paise paid to them for Khasra Nos. 348 and 349. In this view of the matter, judgment--debtor is not entitled to the refund of the said amount.

The view taken by the Court below is perfectly correct and calls for no interference by this Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.