1968 (3) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of ₹ 5,0001- with the appellants' father in 1926 repayable with interest at Rangoon Nadappu rate. A demand was made for re-payment on 1944 and a suit for recovery of the amount was fixed on March 16, 1945. The trial court decreed the suit in the year 1946 for ₹ 11,459-14-0. The appellants' father preferred an appeal therefrom to the High Court and pending disposal of the same deposited ₹ 3,500/- in court on April 16, 1947. The High Court confirmed the decree on September 14, 1951. There is some dispute about the actual date but there is no con-test that the appellants' father deposited ₹ 11,098-10-2 to obtain stay of execution of the decree. On August 20, 1947 the court passed an order to the effect that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 16 cl. (ii), of the Amending Act." The Full Bench of the Madras High Court constituted for the purpose of hearing the appeal from the order of the Subordi- nate Jude held that the lower court was competent to give relief tinder s. 19(2) of the Act by way of scaling down the decree passed by the High Court, and referred the matter back for decision by a bench. The Bench decided inter alia that the application was properly presented before the Subordinate Judge i.e., the court which passed the decree. it refused to go into the question as to whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist in (1) [1959] Supp. S.C.R. 237 view of the concession before the Full Bench. It further negatived the plea that the decree had become satisfied by paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed a decree for the 'repayment of a debt payable at such commencement." 'Debt' has been defined in S. 3(iii) of the Act as meaning " any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from an agriculturist, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise, but does not include rent as defined in clause (iv), or 'kanartham' as defined in section 3(1)(1) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929." It will be noted that the definition is of a very wide import and would include any liability due from an agriculturist with the exceptions specified. Section 4 takes out of the ambit of the definition various liabilities and impositions on the agriculturist expressly spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld arise on such a demand. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued that the word 'debt' implied a pre-existing loan and as such it could not apply to a deposit. The definition in s. 3(iii) clearly negatives such a proposition. If loans alone were meant to be covered by the use of the word 'debt', there was no reason to exclude rent from the purview of the expression. In that case there would have been no need to mention expressly revenue tax or cess or liability arising out of a breach of trust or in respect of "maintenance under a decree of court or otherwise" in s. 4. The plea of the decree-holder which succeeded before the High Court cannot therefore be accepted. It was however argued that the decree had bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of August 29, 1923 directing stay of execution on terms of a deposit being made was that "the money was paid into Court to give security to the plaintiff that in the event of their succeeding in the appeal they should obtain the fruits of their success,," and the "money which was paid into court belonged to the party who might be eventually found entitled to the sum." On the other hand, there is a decision of the Bombay High Court in Keshavlal v. Chandulal(2) where a judgment-debtor had obtained an order for stay of execution of the decree on his depositing the decretal amount in court. Later on the application of the judgment debtor the deposit was invested in Government promissory notes which appreciated in value ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ney in court as was done in this case is to put the money beyond the reach of the parties pending the disposal of the appeal. The decree- holder could only take it out on furnishing security which means that the payment was not in satisfaction of the decree and the security could be proceeded against by the judgment debtor in case of his success in the appeal. Pending The determination of the same, it was beyond the reach of the judgment-debtor. The observations in. Chowthmull's case(1) do not help the respondent. In that case, the appeal was not proceeded with by the Official Assignee. Consequently, the decree-holder could not be deprived of the money which had been put into court to obtain stay of execution of the decree as but for t....