MOOKA NAICKER Vs. A K VENKATASAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the appellant as a condition of obtaining an order of stay of execution of a certain decree against which he had filed an appeal in this Court was asked by this Court to make a deposit of the amount of the decree of the Court below which the respondent before me, the decree-holder, was directed to take out on furnishing security. The respondent could not furnish security and did not take out the money. It was contended in the execution petition (filed after the disposal of the appeal against the decree) out of which this appeal arises that interest ceased to run with the deposit of the amount of the decree of the Court below by the appellant as a condition of the stay order made pending the disposal of the appeal against the decree itself. The contention was negatived by the Court below but is repeated here. There is authority of this Court binding upon me, the decision of a Bench reported in Periakaruppan Chettiar v. Veerappa Chettiar, 1943-2 M. L. J. 441: (A. I. R. (31) 1944 Mad. 46) which concludes this matter against the appellant. In the ruling cited, it was pointed out that

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Sundaram Aiyar for the appellant that this is not a case of mere voluntary payment by him which might mean that interest might not cease to run, but the case of a payment which his client made under the (sic) order on an invitation by the decree-holder, the respondent, to his client to pay the amount into Court. I am not prepared to say that merely because the respondent was a party to the order of Court which directed the deposit and the security that he invited the appellant to pay the money into Court. Of course in the case of voluntary payments it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that interest ceases to run. For instance in the case in Sitaramayya v. Venkanna, 1911-2 M. L. J. 768: (A. I. R. (29) 1942 Mad. 166) it was held that:

(3.) In the circumstances the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.