RAM DAS SAHU Vs. SUKHDEO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant who was a decree-holder having, obtained the decree on 19 September 1929, against the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 368 besides costs. The judgment-debtor under the decree has been found to have paid three sums, namely Rs. 100 on 1st, September 1930, two sums of Rs. 50 on 3rd February 1932, and 13 July 1932 under an agreement or understanding with the decree-holder that he would certify these sums towards the decree. Under that, impression the judgment-debtor paid a further sum of Rs. 177 on 17 September 1932, which was the balance according to him then due under the decree. This, amount of Rs. 177 was certified as having, been received by the decree-holder, the judgment-debtor being under the impression that the whole of the decree has thus-been satisfied. But he was surprised to find that the defendant had taken out execution of the decree ignoring the payment of Rs. 200 stated above.

(2.) His property was put up for sale for realization of this amount and about 1st December 1934 the plaintiff had to deposit the money, that is Rs. 200 over, and thus saved his property from sale. It is obvious therefore that the injury to the plaintiff accrued about 1 December 1934, when he obtained the right to bring a suit for damages to recover the sums if 1 such a suit was maintainable. The defence to the action was that the earlier amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant), not in discharge of his liability in part under the decree of September 1929, but for some other antecedent debts due on handnotes or other rookas. This defence has been concurrently disbelieved by the Courts below who have awarded a decree for a sum of Rs. 200 besides interest in the sum of Rs. 83 and costs.

(3.) In appeal it is argued that such a suit as not maintainable; but there is a long current of authorities to the contrary which is to be found in Mulla's well-known Commentary, Edn. 10, at pp. 694 and 695. It is well settled now that if A executes a decree notwithstanding a payment made by a judgment-debtor B, the latter can maintain a suit against A to recover damages for breach of contract represented by this adjustment or payment.