CHAGANLAL SHRILAL Vs. GOPILAL CHOTU(SIC)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents who are owners of a firm Chironjilal Ramdayal of Dhar obtained a decree against the Appellant from the Court of the District Judge, Dhar. This decree was confirmed in appeal by the High Court but the decretal amount was made payable by annual instalments of Rs. 300/ -. The decree was for Rs. 2901/3/6 which consisted of the following amounts:

(2.) THE judgment -debtor has paid some instalments and after adjusting the money received, the decree -holder filed an execution for a sum of Rs. 1240/9/0 on 16 -6 -1950. The judgment -debtor objected to the sum claimed and submitted that the decree -holder had appropriated the payments towards costs and interest before applying them towards the principal sum. The contention was overruled by the District Judge, Dhar and the debtor has therefore this appeal.

(3.) THE decree does not mention that the costs or interest should be paid after the principal sum is wiped out. It is also not suggested on behalf of the judgment -debtor that he had made the payments specifically towards the principal sum. The law gives the power to the decree -holder to appropriate payments made by the debtor towards any debt lawfully due in the absence of an indication by the debtor as to how the payment is to be appropriated. The contention of Mr. Nandlal Datta that the costs awarded by the Court is not a lawful debt is not supported by the decision of the Calcutta High Court on which he has placed reliance. In that case the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the costs of the trial Court were not awarded to the Defendant in the previous litigation and therefore the payment by the Plaintiff could not be adjusted by him towards those costs.