A SHANMUGAPPA Vs. AMARIAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1 defendant, as the decree-holder in O.S. No. 15 of 1893, was entitled to get from the plaintiffs, the judgment-debtors, the sum of Rs. 7,735. Between the 29hh October 1901 and the 25 February 1902, he was paid the sum of Rs. 1,700. (A series B and C). On the 1st November 1902, the 1 defendant acknowledged that the amount remaining due to him under the decree was only Rs. 1,893-0-9. The 2nd and 3 defendants decree-holders of the 1 defendant attached this decree and demanded payment from the plaintiffs (B) and they agreed to recognise any payments that may have been made to the 1 defendant (F. & G.). They received from the plaintiffs on the 2 January, 1904, a sum of Rs. 1,140-11-5. (K.F. 2 shows how this was arrived at) and granted the; Receipt (4) on the 2 January, 1904 in which it is recited that out of the amount of Rs. 3,717-12-9, which was due to 1 defendant, under the decree on 1 October 1901, the plaintiffs have paid him Rs. 2,222-4-0 and there was a sum of Rs. 454-13-4 due by the 1 defendant to the plaintiff and the amount aforesaid received on that date by the 2nd and the 3 defendants from the plaintiff alone was due. The latter undertook to enter up satisfaction of the decree in so far as it directed payment of money (J) and the plaintiff undertook to prove the payment of Rs. 2,222-4-0 which they alleged they paid the 1 defendant whenever it might become necessary (VII). The first defendant in a letter to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 denied having received this sum from the plaintiffs IX. This was forwarded to the plaintiffs VIII in January 1904. The plaintiffs then applied to this Court after notice to 1st, 2nd and 3 defendants to have satisfaction entered up by the 2nd and 3 defendants as agreed to by them. This application was rejected on the ground that the 2nd and 3 defendants have entered up satisfaction so far as the payments to them were concerned and nothing more could be done, The 4 defendant, another decree- holder of the 1 defendant, again attached the decree and the plaintiffs had to pay the sum of Rs. 2,677-1-4 to him in July 1907 on account of the default of the other defendants to certify satisfaction. The plaintiffs, therefore, now claim damages. The 4 defendant is not liable. Even if he knew that the plaintiffs had discharged the decree, he only exercised his legal right to recover his money.

(2.) Nor do I see any cause of action against defendants Nos. 2 and 3. They certified payment of the amount received by them. It was the plaintiff's business to compel 1 defendant to certify, satisfaction, not theirs. So far as the 1 defendant is concerned, the question is whether the claim is barred by limitation. It is argued that the cause of action arose when the defendant failed to certify payment and reliance is placed on the decision reported in In the matter of Medai Thalavoi Kaliani Anni 30 M. 545 : 3 M.L.T. 15. I am of opinion that the suit is not barred. It is true that when a judgment-debtor pays out of Court the decree amount, there is an obligation on the part of the decree-holder to report satisfaction to the Court. The consideration for the payment is certifying payment as the judgment is to discharge the decree-debt and the decree-holder is, therefore, bound to take the necessary steps to give a proper discharge, otherwise the decree still remains capable of execution by the decree-holder or any other attaching decree-holder. The payment, therefore, must be treated as having been made without consideration and the judgment-debtor is entitled to get back the money so paid.

(3.) But the cause of action here is different. In a suit for damages, the cause of action arises only when damage is sustained. In this case the plaintiff was compelled to pay the 4th defendant a certain sum of money on account of the 1 defendant's default in certifying payment. The cause of action only arose when he had to pay the money. In the 1 case, the amount recoverable is what the judgment-debtor paid the decree-holder of his decree-debt; in the 2nd case, it is the amount, paid the 2nd time, which may be very different and possibly a far smaller amount.