THEVARAYA REDDY Vs. VENKATACHALA PANDITHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought to recover the amount due on a mortgage-bond (Exhibit A) executed on 27th May 1895 by the defend ants Nos. 1 and 2 (1st and 2nd appellants) in favour of the late Ramakrishna Pandithan, manager of the family to which the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 7 to 9 belong. After the mortgagee s death, as the appellants wished to discharge the mortgage and as his legal representatives were disputing among themselves, the appellants paid the full amount due into Court on 1st October 1903 under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. Notice appears to have been given as required by that section, but as the mortgagee s representatives could not settle their disputes, the money remained in Court till about a year later when the appellants withdraw it. The present suit was filed on 6th August 1910. The sole question is whether under Section 84 of the Transfer of Property Act, interest on the mortgage-debt ceases to run from the date of the deposit in Court (1st October 1903) in spite of the subsequent withdrawal.

(2.) The lower Appellate Court differing from the District Munsif and relying on Krishnasami Chettiar v. Ramasami Cheitiar 8 Ind. Cas. 763 : 35 M. 44 : 9 M.L.T. 131 : (1910) M.W.N. 89 has held that it does not cease to run.

(3.) I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my learned brother and fully appreciate the cogency of much of the reasoning therein contained. I am, however, regretfully constrained to differ as to the decision we should come to in this case.