NEELACANDA IYER Vs. V GOPALA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the question arising for decision, it is not necessary to relate all the facts of this ancient litigation. The appeal arises in execution of a decree which was obtained by the appellant, mortgagee of certain properties, on the basis of a lease back to the mortgagor, for recovery of possession with arrears of rent and future rent. The decree was passed on the 10th March, 1928 under the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. The question which arises for decision is whether the appellant can recover future interest, that is interest subsequent to the date of the decree, without any limit as under S.34(1) of the Indian Civil Procedure Code or only subject to the limit imposed by S.31(3) of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. S.31(1), (2) and (3) of the latter may be usefully quoted and are as follows:

(2.) The contentions of the appellant are two fold, first that the decree being one for the recovery of possession and of rent past and future, is not a decree for the payment of money within the meaning of S.31(3) of the Travancore Code and of S.34(i) of the Indian Code, and second, that no right had accrued to the respondent in respect of the limit of future interest set by S.31(3) of the Travancore Code so as to be saved by the operation of S.20 of Act 2 of 1951, notwithstanding the repeal of the Travancore or Travancore - Cochin Codes.

(3.) On the first contention learned counsel for the appellant made a classification of decrees into decrees for money, decrees for or relating to immovable property, & decrees for movable properties. We were taken through some of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code which deal with such decrees, and in particular, O.20 R.9 to 12 and O.21 R.2 and 18 of the Indian, Code. One of the rules relied on, O.21 R.30, which provides: