Sistu Seetaramayya vs Tadapalli Sodemma

The plaintiff sues to re-cover damages from the defendant in somewhat curious circumstances. The defend-ant had a decree for money against

the plaintiff and there was an agreement arrived at between the parties by which theft decree-holder consented to receive an amount less than the

decree amount in several instalments, covering a period of two years, the first instalment being payable on the date of the agreement. It would seem

that two instalments were paid to the decree-holder. In the payment of the 2nd instalment there was a delay of a few days, but the defendant

waived the delay and accepted payment, but wduld not receive the 3rd instalment sent to him and then took steps to enforce the decree and realise

the amount due upon the decree apart from the agreement. The agreement was never brought to the notice of the Court or sanctioned by it. The

plaintiff says that he is entitled to recover damages from the defendant for violation of the agreement even though he could not set up the agreement

as a bar to execution. But the agreement comes within the purview of Section 257 A of the old Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882, which

lays down that every agreement to give time for the satisfaction of a judgment debt shall be void unless it is made for consideration and with the

sanction of the Court which passed the decree and such Court deems the consideration to be under the circumstances reasonable"". It would be

void on two grounds: first of all, it was not sanctioned by the Court, and secondly, there was no consideration for it. We cannot accept the

contention that because the 1st instalment was paid at the date of the agreement, them was valid consideration for it. The case referred to by the

District Munsif Verikata Sutramania Ayyar v. Koran Kannan Ahmad 12 M.L.J. 113, clearly shows that an agreement of this nature is an

agreement to give time within the meaning of Section 257 A and does not put an end to the relationship of judgment-debtor and creditor by

extending the time. It relieves the defendant from the obligation of satisfying the decree at any time he is called upon to do so by the decree-holder.

The agreement baing void as not being sanctioned by the Court as required by law, no rights can arise to the plaintiff under such an agreement and

the suit Was rightly dismissed by both the Courts.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.