R KRISHNA MURTHI AYYAR Vs. PASUPULETH MUNUSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 167 of 1933. The decree was against two defendants. It ordered them jointly and severally to pay a sum of money, and with regard to the 2nd defendant, it said: It is further ordered that the decree against 2nd defendant shall stand stayed in case he pays on the 5 of every month commencing from July 5,1933, at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem until the decree is satisfied, in case of default of any instalment, this stay order will cease. The stay order will also have effect only on 2nd defendant furnishing security of immovable property for the decree amount and agreeing to pay interest at 9 per cent. por annum on or before July 5, 1933,

(2.) A. security bond was executed by the 2nd defendant and it referred to certain immovable property and stated: I will be paying without default the said decree amount as per order of Court by the 5 of each month. In case of default of any instalment as , aforesaid, the balance that may then be due after giving credit to payments so far made, may be recovered in one lump sum from me and from my properties described in the schedule hereunder and I can have no objection thereto. Until the aforesaid decree amount is fully realised, I have kept the aforementioned property belonging to me, viz., my house worth about Rs. 1,000 as security. I shall not alienate in any manner the said house until the aforesaid decree amount is fully satisfied.

(3.) In our view that surety bond and the decree clearly created a charge on the property concerned in favour of the decree-holder. Now the 1 defendant filed an application for rateable distribution in this case and that was allowed by the District Munsif on the ground shortly that no charge was created on the property. The other questions raised in this Revision Petition were apparently not aruged. It was decided on the question of charge or no charge.