RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. ESTATE COLLECTOR OF SIVAGANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is one of limitation arising in execution of a decree. There was a decree obtained against the appellant by the Sivaganga Estate on 7 June 1920. In execution of the decree the estate after arresting the appellant collected Rs. 682-5-6 on 29 October 1920. The appellant appealed and on 13 November 1923 the decree in execution of which money had been collected was reversed. The decree-holder then deposited a certain amount in Court and on 21 October 1924, intimation was given by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the appellant that the money had been deposited. The appellant received it on 31 October 1924 and on 9 July 1927, filed the present petition claiming interest by way of restitution on the amount during the time it was in the hands of the other side until the amount was paid to him by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not presented within three years from the date of the remittance of the principal amount. This apparently is an error because the principal amount was remitted on 26 October 1924 and the petition was within three years of this date.

(2.) On appeal the District Judge con firmed the order on the ground that the application of the defendant was not one for the execution of the decree within the meaning of Art. 182, Lim. Act, and that such amount due to the defendant by way of interest had not been stated in the decree and had to be determined separately. An application for payment of interest could not therefore be regarded as an application for execution of the decree. Before me it is argued that this reasoning is wrong: vide Somasundaram V/s. Chockkalinga (1917) 40 Mad 780 and Unnamalai Ammal V/s. Arunachalam (1917) 42 IC 530. In the latter case it was held that the application is governed by Art. 182 and not by Art. 181.

(3.) It has however to be seen whether this application, execution petition, is in time. The decree was on 13 November 1923, and the decree is in the petitioner's favour. He has to show that he took a step-in-aid of execution within three years. It has been argued before the learned District Judge that he made an application to the Sub-Treasury to draw the money. The letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer was dated 21 October 1924, and the application to draw the money was, it is argued, a step-in-aid of execution. As observed above the learned District Judge dismissed the application on other grounds. I therefore made a reference to the Revenue Divisional Officer to see whether there had been any such application. It appears that there was no application apart from the present execution petition. But it has been argued that the money would not have been paid out without an application and therefore an application may be presumed. The letter of intimation by the Revenue Divisional Officer was on 21st October 1924, and runs as follows: Please take notice that a sum of Rs. 781-6-8 has been deposited in the Sivaganga Sub-Treasury in satisfaction of the decree in A.S. No 796 of 1920 on the file of the District Court at Ramnad at Madura on Special Deputy Collector's S.S. No. 1862 of 1918 and the same has been ordered to be paid to you by the Sub-Treasury Officer, Sivaganga, in my R.O.C.A. No. 3-2013-24, dated 27 September 1924.