KAMAKSHI AMMAL Vs. PAPPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners sought for a refund of a sum of Rs. 979 -50, which is in court deposit, pursuant to interim orders made by this court, whilst the respondents equally claim that that amount is payable to them, as the same was deposited by them into court as per orders of court and that the petitioners have no right, title or interest therein. The petitioners' predecessor -in -interest was the landlord and the first respondent was his tenant of agricultural lands in the district of Thanjavur. He filed a suit O.S. No. 40 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur, for the recovery of arrears of rent by then payable by the first respondent - first defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first plaintiff in that suit took up the matter further in appeal to the District Court, Nagapattinam in A. S. 76 of 1964 and the same was allowed. The tenant - defendant preferred an appeal to this court in S. A. 1061 of 1966, and sought for stay of execution of the decree. This Court directed the defendant to deposit one -half of the decree amount and to give security for the other half. Pursuant to the said orders, the defendant deposited the said sum. The second appeal was however, dismissed. In the course of this litigation, the first plaintiff died and plaintiffs 2 to 9 are his legal representatives; even so the first defendant died and the second defendant is his legal representative. Plaintiffs 2 to 9 were added as the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff and the second defendant as the heir of the first defendant was added as his representative and was recognised as a person entitled to the benefits of the cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. After the passing of the Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972, the second defendant deposited the arrears of rent payable for Fasli 1381 and sought for a declaration from the revenue court that the arrears of rent by then payable have been wiped out. She obtained such a declaration. After obtaining the same, she (respondent in the C. R. P.) filed E. A. 577 of 1973 in O.S. 40 of 1962 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur, seeking for a refund of the sum of Rs. 979 -50 paid by the first defendant (her predecessor - in -interest) as if that amount belongs to her and that plaintiffs 2 to 9 have no right, title or interest in it. This was resisted by the legal representatives of the decree -holder (petitioner in the C. R. P.). Their case was that they were entitled to the amount in court deposit in preference to the second defendant as heir of the judgment -debtor. Furthering this aspect plaintiffs 2 to 9, who are the petitioners herein, filed an independent application under Section 151, C.P.C. read with Rule 163 of the Civil Rules of Practice for payment out of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 979 -50. According to the petitioners the amount deposited in court has become payable to them and has become their property no sooner the second appeal was dismissed. The respondent (the heir of the judgment -debtor) cannot take advantage of Act 21 of 1972, and seek for a refund of the aforesaid amount on the foot that the said amount represented outstanding arrears of rent as on the 30th June 1971 within the meaning of Section 3 (1) of the said Act. The fact remains that the petitioners did not withdraw the amount soon after the dismissal of the second appeal and before the induction of Act 21 of 1972. The learned District Munsif was of the view that the decree obtained by the first plaintiff in the original suit was a decree towards rent and that, therefore, such a decree for payment of the rent became unenforceable by reason of Act 21 of 1972. He was also of the view that the decree -holder as at present by withdrawing the said amount cannot enter part satisfaction of the decree as on date. In the light of the above reasoning he upheld the contention of the cultivating tenant and was of the view that the legal representatives of the first plaintiff were not entitled to the payment of the money in court deposit. It is as against this, the present civil revision petitions have been filed by the heirs of the landlord.

(2.) THE contention of Mr. M. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the learned District Munsif was wrong in having entered into a discussion about the enforceability or otherwise of the decree and as the amount deposited has become the property of the decree -holder, the respondents cannot claim any interest in it, as the judgment -debtor or the legal representatives of the judgment -debtor. On the other hand, it is said that as long as the decree -holder did not seek for payment out of the amount and as the dismissal of the second appeal cannot have any bearing on the issue, as the amount always belonged to the judgment -debtor, it is claimed that the order of the lower court is correct.

(3.) THE above subject has come up, though not under similar circumstances, but in a broader perspective in courts of law. In Sheo Gholam Sahoo v. Rahut Hussain (1878) ILR 4 Cal 6 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court as early as 1878 took the view that when money is deposited in court, the court holds the deposit in trust for the decree -holder and the court is at liberty to pay it over to the decree -holder based on his success in the legal proceedings.