THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY Vs. THRESSIAMMA GEORGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 07.03.2006 in E.P. No. 1 of 2005 in L.A.R. No. 76 of 1988 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur is under challenge at the instance of judgment debtor No. 2. Vide the impunged order, petitioner was directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 2,73,232.13. According to the learned Counsel for petitioner respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not entitled to any interest on the amount of solatium awarded by reference court in so far as the decree does not provide for that and since the executing court cannot go behind the decree. It is also contended that executing court has calculated interest on rest of the enhanced compensation awarded without being provided for in the decree. I have heard learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also.

(2.) Contention that in the absence of a provision in decree respondent Nos. 1 to 4 could not claim interest on solatium cannot stand in the light of the decisions in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2006 8 SCC 457 and Collector, L.A. v. Jaswant Singh, 2008 AIR(SC) 653. Those decisions, referring to the decision in Sunder v. Union of India, 2001 7 SCC 211 have held that unless a claim of interest on solatium was made and rejected either by the reference or appellate court, claimant is entitled to get interest on solatium from 19.09.2001 onwards. There is no case that reference court in this case expressly or by necessary implication rejected claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for interest on solatium. Hence respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to get interest on solatium awarded by reference court.

(3.) So far interest payable on rest of the enhanced compensation awarded by reference court is concerned, it is not disputed before me that such interest is payable only if the decree has provided that.