TANGATUR SUBBARAYUDU Vs. YERRAM SETTI SESHASANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination in this appeal is whether the Lower Courts were right in holding that the respondent was entitled to restitution under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. One Kami Setti Ghatta as president of a certain fund obtained a money-decree against the respondent and two others in Original Suit No. 985 of 1897, in the District Munsifs Court, Gooty, on 12th February 1898. One Y. Narayana Rao styling himself president of the fund transferred the decree to the appellant. The objection raised by the judgment-debtor to the transferee s right to execute the decree was overruled and the transfer was recognized by the Court on 12th July 1904. The appellant received Rs. 315-14-4 from the respondent (first defendant in the suit) in execution on 12th August 1904.

(2.) Prior to the payment of the decree-amount, the respondent and another had instituted a suit--Original Suit No. 479 of 1904--in the Gooty Munsif s Court against the appellant and his transferor for a declaration that the transfer of the decree in Original Suit No. 985 of 1897 was invalid and for an injunction restraining the appellant from executing the decree and receiving the amount deposited in Court.

(3.) Finally after a remand by the High Court, the District Munsif on 29th November 1909 passed a decree (which was affirmed on appeal) declaring the transfer of the decree in Original Suit No. 985 of 1897 to be invalid and restraining the present appellant from executing the decree and receiving the amount deposited in Court. The respondent applied by an execution petition on 22nd March 1912 to recover the amount with interest from the appellant. The Lower Courts following the ruling in Shiam Sundar Lal v. Kaisar Zamain Begam (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 143 held that the respondent was entitled under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, to recover the amount which she paid under the decree in Original Suit No. 985 of 1897 with interest.