GOPALJI CHAUDHURI Vs. SUMRIT MANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is unnecessary to state the facts of this case at length because they have been fully narrated in the judgments of the Courts below. It is sufficient to say that the appellant's father obtained an ex parte decree against the respondent who is a minor on 30 June 1923. The decretal amount was thereafter tendered to the decree-holder; but he refused to accept it, and so it was deposited in Court on 31 January 1924. Notice of this deposit was duly served upon the decree- holder. Nevertheless the decree-holder proceeded to sell the property of the judgment-debtor.

(2.) The question is whether the sale under these circumstances is valid. The Courts below have on a calculation of the amounts come to the conclusion that the amount deposited was short by five annas and six pies, and the lower appellate Court has taken the view that under these circumstances execution, could not have been taken out for the entire decretal amount. As against this view it was contended by Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Jha who appears for the appellant that under Order 21, Rule 1, Civil P.C., "all money payable under the decree" means the entire amount payable under the decree.

(3.) This view however does not find support in Amtul Habib V/s. Muhammad Yusuf (1917) 40 All 125 where it was held that where money is paid into Court by the judgment-debtor in satisfaction of a decree, interest on the decree will cease from the date of payment in proportion to the amount paid, although such amount may not in fact be the whole amount due under the decree. This decision clearly implies that even if a portion of the decretal amount is paid it will be a valid payment.