V N MUTHUSWAMY IYER Vs. VSNARASIMHA AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Salem directing satisfaction of the decree to be recorded to the extent of Rs. 2,100. The decree was obtained in the name of a firm styled as V.N. Sundaram Ayyar and Brothers represented by the managing partner V.N. Muthuswami Ayyar. The suit itself was filed in the name of the firm represented by the aforesaid managing partner. Subsequent to the decree another brother of the family received a sum of Rs. 2,100 in full satisfaction of the decree and put in a memorandum requesting the Court to record satisfaction. The firm consists of the brothels of a joint Hindu family, and, as such, the person who received the payment and who applied to the Court to enter up satisfaction is not only one of the members of the joint family, but also one of the partners of the firm. This petition was opposed by Muthuswami Ayyar who filed this suit as the managing partner of the firm. The question is whether by reason of the payment of the decree amount to V.S. Narasimha Ayyar, one of the partners of the firm, a valid discharge of the decree debt has been given so as to bind the other partners of the firm. The learned District Judge seems to have taken the decision reported in Ghulam Muhammad V/s. Sohna Mal A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 385, as authority for the position that Narasimha Ayyar can give a valid discharge when the decree is in favour of the firm. The correctness of that view is now challenged in this appeal.

(2.) In the first place, we have to see what is the effect of the decree given in favour of the firm. There is abundant authority for holding, that the description of the decree-holder as the firm tantamounts to a decree being given in the names of those who are partners of the firm. That description is only a compendious way of mentioning all those who are really the partners of that firm: vide Administrator General V/s. Sultan Alii Sushtary & Co. A.I.R. 1927 Bom. 255, Ram Prasad v. Anundji & Co. A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 408, Broja Lal V/s. Budh Nath Pyari Lal & Co. . The mere fact that the decree stands in the name of the firm does not preclude us from holding that it is virtually a decree in favour of all the partners jointly. A later decision of the Lahore High Court Abdul Hamid V/s. Dhanpat Mal A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 507, is in conflict with the view expressed in the decision in A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 385, (which was followed by the lower Court in this case), but no reference was made to the earlier decision itself. Both those decisions are decisions of single Judges. In the later decision, it is clearly stated that a decree in the name of a firm is a decree passed generally in favour of all the partners and that any one or more of the partners can take out execution for the benefit of all the partners under Order 21, Rule 15, Civil P.C. It follows that though the decree stands in the name of the firm, it must be treated as a decree in favour of all the partners jointly even for the purposes of Order 21, Rule 15, Civil P.C.

(3.) Now the question is, whether the aforesaid Narasimha Ayyar who is one of the joint decree-holders can give a valid discharge in respect of the whole decree by any payment received by him alone. It may be conceded that he fills two capacities, viz. that of a partner in a firm and that of a joint decree-holder. In the latter capacity, what are his rights? A payment towards a decree in order to be valid must be made to the decree-holder if made out of Court : Vide Order 21, Rule 1, Clause (b). Civil P.C. The term "decree-holder" therein used in singular includes also the plural "decree-holders". If there are two or more decree-holders the payment must necessarily be made to all of them according to this rule. Having regard to the terms of Rule 15, one of the joint decree-holders cannot as a matter of right execute the whole decree without reference to the other decree- holders. It is in the discretion of the Court to allow one of such decree-holders to execute the whole decree, and when so doing the Court should make such orders as are necessary for protecting the interests of the persons who have not joined in the application. If one of two or more joint decree-holders takes it upon himself to certify satisfaction of the whole decree, then the Court can make no provision for safeguarding the interests of the other decree-holder or decree-holders as required by Order 21, Rule 15, Civil P.C. If satisfaction of the whole decree should be entered on the report of one of the joint decree-holders alone, it would amount to a violation of the provisions of Rule 15, Order 21. This is the view expressed in a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Moti Ram V/s. Hanu Prasad (1904) 26 All. 334.