SAGAR MAL PODDAR Vs. AMIR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals by the plaintiff and arise out of the same judgment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present suit are as follows. On 15-X-1944 an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 by which the latter agreed to sell the house in dispute to the plaintiff. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- with Defendant No. 2 by way of earnest money. Despite the agreement aforesaid defendant No. 2 sold the house in question to defendant No. 1 on 13-12-1944. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted suit No. 26 of 1945 against both the defendants for specific performance of the contract. This suit was decreed on 25-2-1946. There was an appeal to the High Court and during the pendency of the appeal the defendant No. 1 was permitted to deposit a sum of Rs. 800/- by way of mesne profits of the house in dispute. The appeal of defendant No. 1 eventually failed and it was held that the amount of Rs. 8,300/- deposited in court towards the sale price of the house shall be paid to defendant No. 1. On 27-3-1952 the sale deed was accordingly executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that he was entitled to recover interest by way o£ damages at the rate of 6% per annum as from 7-3-1946, the date on which he deposited Rs. 8,300/- in court towards the sale price of the house. In this connection it must be pointed out that after the passing of the decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff the court directed him to deposit the money, which he did within the time allowed. The said deposit, therefore, was made in pursuance of the decree of the court. During the pendency of the appeal the money remained in the custody of the court. The execution of the decree by the plaintiff was stayed by the High Court on condition of the contesting defendant depositing Rs. 800/-. Thus the amount of Rs. 800/- really represented the damages which according to the court were likely to accrue to the plaintiff, inasmuch as the deposit of Rs. 8,300/- had been made under the orders of the court, and in view of the fact that Rs. 800/- were considered sufficient by the High Court to cover any loss occasioned to the plaintiff by reason of his having been dispossessed of the house in question, I consider that he was not entitled to any interest by way of damages.