The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs Jampana Ramesh Varma

C.V.N. Sastri, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the lower Court overruling the objections raised by the petitioners-judgment-debtors to the memo of calculation filed by the respondent-decree holder and accepting the same as correct.

Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioners-judgment debtors contends that the appropriation of several payments made by the petitioners from time to time has not been properly made by the respondent-decree-holder and that the payments have to be appropriated towards the principal and not interest. I do not find any substance in this contention. It is the settled position in law that any payments made by the judgment-debtor towards the decretal amount have to be first appropriated towards interest and the excess if any has to be appropriated towards principal amount, (see the decisions of the Supreme Court in Meghraj and Others Vs. Mst. Bayabai and Others, and Mathunni Mathai Vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited and another, . Following the said decisions of the Supreme Court, a learned single Judge of this Court in a recent decision in Sukhdev Pershad (died), his L.R. Durga Pershad Vs. B. Kishanlal and Others, , has reiterated the above principle. I have perused the calculation memo filed on behalf of the respondent-decree-holder and I find that the several payments made by the petitioners-judgment-debtors from time to time have been properly appropriated in accordance with law and I do not find any error therein.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners-judgment-debtors, however, sought to place reliance on some observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur Vs. Gokul Narain and another, . That case arose out of a land acquisition matter under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act of 1959. In that case, the decree was granted for solatium and additional benefits with interest thereon contrary to the provisions of the Act. At the stage of execution, it was sought to be contended that the decree was a nullity and non-est and the appellant claimed restitution of certain amounts paid under the decree. The Supreme Court allowing the appeal held that the decree was a nullity and non-est and its invalidity can be set up even at the stage of execution proceedings or in a collateral proceeding. In that context, the Supreme Court made the following observations:-

"......The liability to pay interest subsists till the date of deposit of the amount into Court. There is no liability to pay interest on solatium; or solatium and interest on additional amount u/s 23 (1-A) which cannot be calculated and claimed in execution. The claimant cannot adjust the amount deposited and received towards principal amount as against interest. The doctrine of Section 60 of the Contract Act, 1872 is inapplicable to the execution of the award under the Act. Therefore, the claimant cannot appropriate the amounts paid for compensation towards interest."

I fail to see how the above observations of the Supreme Court render any assistance to the petitioners in the present case. No question of invalidity of the decree arose in the present case. The decree directed payment of a sum of Rs. 2,34,705-95 to the respondent-decree-holder with interest at 12% per annum from 13-3-1984 till the date of realisation. The petitioners-judgment-debtors made three payments of Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 62,000/- and Rs. 1.61,989/- on the 14-6-88, 2-8-88 and 13-4-95 respectively. In the calculation memo filed by the respondent-decree holder interest is calculated at 12% per annum on the decretal amount from 13-3-84 to 14-6-88, that is the date of first payment. After deducting the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid on 14-6-88, interest is calculated on the balance amount till the date of next payment and likewise till the date of last payment. After deducting all the payments made by the petitioners-judgment debtors the amount due with interest upto 14-4-96, that is the date of the calculation memo, is arrived at Rs. 1,16,369-20.1 do not find any error in the method of calculation made by the respondent-decree-holder. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.