Ujagar Singh vs Harbans Singh and others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This second appeal must succeed. The Courts below have overlooked a settled course of decisions on the question involved. The questions that require determination are (i) whether a decree for money is not satisfied where the decretal amount had to be paid by a given date and on that date, the Court is closed, and the deposit is made on the first opening day of the Court (ii) whether the fact, that the money could be tendered to the decree-holder will make any difference and the payment made on the opening day of the Court would not be a good payment in terms of the decree? The Courts below were under the impression that unless a decree directs payment into Court, the Judgment debtor has to offer the money to the decree holder, in case, the Court is closed on the date on which the payment is to be made. It cannot be paid into Court on the first opening day so as to make it a good payment towards the decree.

On facts, there is no dispute. On the 16th of September, 1963, a decree for Rs. 700/- was passed on the basis of a compromise with a rider that if Rs. 500/- were paid by the 15th of June, 1964, the decree would stand fully satisfied, otherwise the decree-holder will be entitled to recover the entire decretal amount. On the 15th of June, 1964, the Court was closed on account of vacation. The Court reopened on the 16th of July, 1964; and on that very day, the amount of Rs. 500/- was deposited However, an application was made to the Court for condoning the delay in the deposit; and this application was rejected by the Court on the ground that amount should have been deposited before the 15th of June, 1964 in the Court of the Tahsildar, Jagraon, who is authorized to receive the deposit of the decretal amount, instead of the Court.

The judgment debtors were accordingly held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 700/-. An appeal against this decision also failed. The learned Additional District Judge observed that from the statement of the parties, which led to the compromise-decree. It is clear that the judgment-debtor, had undertaken to pay the money to the decree holder himself. On the basis of this fact the learned Judge distinguished the direct" decision of the Lahore High Court supporting the appellant in AIR 1935 369 (Lahore) , and held that it had no application to the facts of the instant case. The learned Additional District Judge was, of course, not oblivious to the fact that in the absence of any express direction in the decree, the judgment-debtors could select any of the modes for the payment of the decretal amount as prescribed under Order 21, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In my opinion, the Courts below have gone wrong in treating the payment made on the opening day of the Court as not a valid payment The decision in Wana Mard Ravji v. Natu Walad Murha ILR 35 Bom. 35 by Heaton J. with whom Chandavarkar J. agreed concludes the matter. The decree in their case provided as follows :

The plaintiff should pay, by the 10th day of April, 1909, to the defendant Rs. 100/-. If the moneys are not paid by the plaintiff as agreed upon, the property in dispute will remain with the defendants by right of ownership and the plaintiff will have no right of ownership over the same. The plaintiff chose to pay the money into Court, and finding it closed on 10th, she paid the money on the 14th April, 1909, the day on which the Court re-opened.

A question arose whether the payment was made within the terms of the decree. It was held "that the payment was properly made, for Order 21, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, intended to enact and did enact that payment into Court was a. valid compliance with the decree even though the decree directed payment to the decree-holder.

In the present case, there is no such direction in the decree. The decree only required the payment to be made by a certain date. The judgment-debtors chose to make the payment through Court. On the last day, when the payment could be made, the Court was "closed. The judgment debtors made the payment on the day, the Court re-opened and, therefore, it cannot be said that the payment was not validly made. The decision of the Madras High Court in Sankaran Unni and Another Vs. Kummakattil Ezhuvan Kandan''s son Raman, is directly in point. This decision of the learned Single Judge was followed by a Division Bench of that Court in Chinna Nadar Vs. A.B.V. Arumugham Chetti, . The Madras decisions were then noticed and followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chandravati Bai (died) by legal representative Kishen Das v. Chagonlal deceased by legal representative Mangilal AIR 1962 A.P. 308. So far as the Lahore High Court is concerned, the only decision on the point is that in Firm Amolak Ram Dwarka Das''s case. No decision taking a contrary view has been cited at the bar.

In this view of the matter, the Courts below were in error in not treating the payment made on the opening day of the Court as a good payment and one in terms of the decree.

That being so, I allow this appeal; set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and hold that the decree is fully satisfied In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.