BOTLA VENKATA SUBBA RAO Vs. GONGUNTIA PEDA PAPAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that is involved in this revision petition is whether payment of the decretal amount by the Judgement-debtor to one of the decree-holders of a joint decree outside the Court can be treated as payment in full satisfaction of the decree.

(2.) Sri P. V. R. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that such a payment can operate a valid discharge of the entire decree, while Sri M. Chandrasekhara Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondents, contends that payment to one of the decree-holders of a joint decree does not bind the other decree-holders and consequently does not give a valid discharge of the decree.

(3.) The plaintiffs suit in S. C. No. 119/1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Narasaraopet was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff was required to pay to the defendants 1 to 3 the suit costs of Rs. 592-95. Hence the defendants filed E. P. No. 101/72 on 4-7-1972 for arrest of the petitioner-plaintiff who is the judgement-debtor. While the E. P. was still pending, the plaintiff-judgement-debtor paid Rs. 592.00 to the 3rd defendant on 30-7-1972 in full satisfaction of the decree. Having received the said amount, the 3rd defendant passed a receipt to the judgement-debtor. In the said receipt, 3rd defendant stated that he was receiving the amount on behalf of all the other defendants and he would distribute to them their shares from the amount. Then the judgement-debtor-plaintiff filed E. A. No. 362/72 in E. P. No. 101/1972 under O. 21 R. 2 requesting the Court to record full satisfaction of the decree in E. P. No. 101/1972. The executing Court did not record full satisfaction of the decree but gave credit only to 1/3rd of the decretal amount and ordered execution for the balance. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd defendant has no power to receive the entire decretal amount except to the extent of his share and the receipt passed by him does not bind the other decree-holders. It is this finding and the order for payment of the balance amount that are now assailed by the judgement-debtor in this revision.