G SHIVA KUMARI Vs. MOHAMMAD NASIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the heir of the decree-holder has to be directed to produce the succession certificate for withdrawing the amount in court deposit to the credit of the deceased decree-holder is the point that falls for consideration in this revision petition.

(2.) The facts which are relevant are as under: Late Bhagwan Narayana, the son of the revision petitioner, sustained injuries in motor accident on 11-5-1988. He filed O.P.No.230 of 1988 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Adilabad under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. An award for Rs.1,30,000/- was passed as per order dated 28-4-1989. Later i.e., on 25-1-1990 Bhagwan Narayana, the son of the revision petitioner, expired. The judgment debtor i.e., the Insurance Company deposited an amount of Rs. 80,000/- in the Court to the credit of the decree-holder in O.P. No.230 of 1988. Then I.A.No.489 of 1990 was filed by the revision petitioner herein and her husband and daughter in March, 1990 under Order XXII, Rule 3 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit them to come as L.Rs. of the deceased and that they may be permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit to the credit of late Bhagwan Narayana, the decree-holder in O.P.No.230 of 1988. The said petition was allowed. Then LA. Nos. 890/90,891/90 and 892/90 were filed by the revision petitioner herein, her husband, and daughter respectively praying for issue of cheques in favour of each of them for Rs. 26, 666-65 ps. thus claiming 1/3rd of the amount in deposit by each of them. The lower tribunal dismissed all the three petitions by observing mat though the revision petitioner is the preferential legal heir of the deceased, her husband and daughter also have come on record as the legal heirs of late Bhagwan Narayana and it was not - averred that the deceased Bhagwan Narayana was unmarried, and as such the cheque petitions cannot be ordered unless the succession certificate is produced. The said order is challenged in this revision petition. It is stated that the husband and daughter of the revision petitioner have not filed revision petitions assailing the same.

(3.) One mode of paying money under decree is by deposit into the Court and the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post acknowledgment due, and interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of notice referred to above. It is evident from Order XXI, Rule 1 C.P.C. and the relevant portion can be conveniently extracted. Order XXI Rule 1: (1) All money payable, under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely;- (a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b)....... ..... (c) ..... ..... (2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgment due. (3) ... ...... ...... (4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2)." An amount of Rs. 80,000/- was deposited by the judgment-debtor, i.e., the Insurance Company towards the award amount in O.P.No.230 of 1988. It amounts to discharge to that extent. (It is not stated as to why only Rs.80,000/- out of the award amount was deposited. It is immaterial for consideration in this revision petition). Thus the amount of Rs. 80,000/-belongs to late Bhagwan Narayana. While considering the scope of occupation 'debt' as defined in the Malayan Ordinance 42 of 1948 Chief Justice Rajamannar held in Muthupalaniapa Chettiar vs. Alagamai Achi that: