LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. MULJI HARIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which these two appeals arise are that in some land acquisition cases in Thana the award originally made by the land acquisition officer was greatly increased by the District Court. The High Court on appeal set aside the decree of the District Court and reduced the compensation to that awarded by the acquiring officer. It so happened that in the interval between these two dates the amount awarded by the District Court had been paid not to the claimant but to a nominee of his, mortgagee, respondent-Mulji. The person receiving the money executed a bond binding himself to repay it. There was no mention of interest in this bond. The amount was repaid and subsequently Government presented two applications to recover interest from the person executing the bond. There were two applications because the amount was paid in two sums, They were disposed of by one order by the District Judge of Thana, but there are two separate appeals.

(2.) The District Judge held that the liability under the bond was expressly limited to the amount which Mulji had already paid. He also held that the matter was res judicata by reason of an order made in the case of Amritlal the surety to the extent of the other one-fourth share, and it was also barred by limitation. Government have appealed in both these applications.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader has contended that the matter must be determined by Order XLI, Rule 6, Section 144 and Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that it is only under Order XLI, Rule 6, that an order for security could be made.