Sri Sri Sri Rajah Rajeswara … vs Chath Venkataramanayya on 10 October, 1890

Last Updated on

Madras High Court
Sri Sri Sri Rajah Rajeswara … vs Chath Venkataramanayya on 10 October, 1890
Equivalent citations: (1896) 6 MLJ 347


1. I think this Appeal must be allowed. The sum of Rs. 1,092-8-0 in question was not a sum payable under a decree, “but it was a sum paid in disregard of the terms of the decree, and any agreement to pay such amount was void under the provisions of the 2nd Clause of 8. 257-A, C.P.C. This being so the matter was not in any way governed by the provisions of Section 258, C.P.C. That section contemplates cases where moneys are payable in accordance with the terms of a decree and also plyments made in pursuance of lawful agreements under Section 257-A, of the Code, viz., such agreements as have received the [334] sanction of the Court. Here both these conditions were wanting and this being so the section does not apply. For the rest it was the duty of the Court on the fact of the disregard of the terms of the decree being brought to its notice to enforce compliance with the decree and in the present case this must be done by applying the provisions of the last 01. of Section 257-A, C.P.C.

2. In reversal, therefore, of so much of the District Judge’s order as relates to the sum of Rs. 1,092-8-0 it is ordered that the said sum of Rs. 1,092-8-0 be applied in satisfaction of the judgment-debt, or if the debt has been fully paid and«there should be a surplus, that surplus be refunded to the judgment-debtor.

3. Appellant will receive his costs of this Appeal from the respondent.

Note.–See Chidambara Pillaiv. Hatna Ammal, I.L.B.,3 M., 118.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *