STATE OF KERALA Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order under challenge relates to the quantification of the amount made to satisfy the decree passed in a Land Acquisition reference by the Sub Court, Kottayam in the execution proceedings. State has filed this revision challenging the Propriety and correctness of the quantification made by the executing court, directing deposit of a sum of Rs. 11,78,741.41 as the balance amount due under the decree.

(2.) I heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Counsel for the Respondent/decree-holder.

(3.) Having regard to the submissions made by the Counsel on both sides and also perusing the order impugned in the revision, I find the court below has not followed the correct principles applicable with respect to the apportionment of the amount deposited, to satisfy the decree. In the order, the learned Sub Judge has expressed the view that partial deposit of the amount made by the State to satisfy the decree has to be adjusted on the principal amount due to the decree-holder. That view is not correct. The correct mode of apportionment to be made in such cases is clarified in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2008 1 KerLJ 463. The decree-holder is entitled to claim apportionment of the amount deposited first towards the interest and cost and then only for adjustment in the principal amount due. Evidently, such a method of apportionment has not been followed by the execution court for adjusting the amount from the deposit made. For that solitary reason, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.