TARU LAL Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals from the same judgment and decree of the District Judge of Rajsamand, dated the 28th of August, 1948. Appeal No. 46 is by Taru Lal and others who are defendants, and appeal No. 47 is by Mangi Lal and Meera Lal who are plaintiffs.

(2.) THE plaintiffs brought their suit under Order XXXIV, Rule 14. THEir case was that they were sub-mortgagees of the defendants. THEy had on an earlier occasion filed a suit for the money due to them and had obtained a decree for Rs. 1,753/6/9. In that suit, however, there was no prayer for sale on the basis of the sub-mortgage and, therefore, no decree for sale under Order XXXIv had been passed. When the earlier decree was put into execution, the plaintiffs wanted to put the property to sale. THEy were then met with the objection that the property could not be put to sale as there was no decree under Order XXXIV for sale in their favour. This dispute was taken up to the High Court of Udaipur. THE High Court decided that the decree could not be executed by sale of the property and directed that if the plaintiffs wanted to sell the property, they should file a suit under Order XXXIV, Rule 14. THEreupon, the present suit was filed. While filing the suit, the plaintiffs also claimed Rs. 485/9/3 as interest. It may be mentioned that the previous decree for Rs. 1,753/6/9 did not allow any interest after the date of that decree. THE trial Court gave a declaration to the effect that the property was saleable under Order XXXIV, Rule 14 in order to pay up the amount of Rs. 1,753/6/9. It dismissed the claim with respect to further interest which was claimed. Both parties appealed from this decree. THE defendants' case was that as they had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,627/- after the decree in the previous suit, no decree for sale should have been passed against them. THE case of the plaintiffs was that they were entitled to interest. THE appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants and affirmed, the decree for sale. Further, it allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs in part and gave them a further sum of Rs. 175/- as interest from the date of the decree till the date of the deposit as damages.