LAWS(PVC)-1925-11-195

TAMBIREDDI VIRAREDDI Vs. DEVI REDDY PATTABHIRAMI REDDY AND COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY CHERUKUMUDI SUBBARAMIAH

Decided On November 24, 1925
TAMBIREDDI VIRAREDDI Appellant
V/S
DEVI REDDY PATTABHIRAMI REDDY AND COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY CHERUKUMUDI SUBBARAMIAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs who are respondents 1 and 2 herein arrested the 2nd defendant, the 3 respondent herein, in execution of a money-decree. The appellant executed a security-bond on nth December, 1923 undertaking to produce and hand over the 2nd defendant whenever the Court passed an order to produce him. The bond also provided that in default of the surety producing the 2nd defendant and handing him over to the Court, the amount of decree, interest, and costs shall be recovered by the plaintiffs from the surety personally. On the execution of the bond, the 2nd defendant was released from arrest. The plaintiffs applied to the Lower Court for an order that the surety be directed to produce the 2nd defendant and in default of producing him, the decree-amount be realised from him. The appellant contended that the decree of the plaintiffs against the 2nd defendant had been satisfied and that no execution could issue against him in execution of a decree already satisfied. The District Judge overruled the objection of the appellant and directed him to produce the and defendant on or before a certain date and on his failure to do so that execution should issue against him. The appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) Two points arise for consideration in this case, one of fact and the other of law.

(3.) The first point is whether the decree has been satisfied. Mr. Somayya for the appellant relies very strongly upon Ex.II which is the defendant's ledger in the account book of the plaintiffs. From the entries in the ledger it is found that a nil balance is struck. And Mr. Somayya's contention is that the decree-debt has been wiped off by payment. There are entries on both sides of the ledger and the balance is zero. In Ex. III, the ledger of the 3 defendant, there is a debit entry of Rs. 5,000. It is argued for the appellant that the 3 defendant paid Rs. 5,000 in discharge of the decree-debt and thereby the decree-debt has been fully satisfied.