Judgment.- In O. S. No. 20 of 1948, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirappalli, one Ranganayaki alias Meenakshi Ammal obtained a decree on 8th August, 1950, for, among other things, a sum of Rs. 10,500. From the decree, the defendant preferred an appeal, A. S. No. 556 of 1950, on the file of this Court. He also filed a C. M. P. for stay of execution. On 25th September, 1950, the appellate Court directed the judgment-debtor to deposit the money, and the decree-holder was permitted to withdraw it only on furnishing security. The deposit was made on 24th October, 1950. On 22nd July, 1954, the High Court confirmed the decree, in so far as it related to the sum of Rs. 10.500. From time to time the decree-holder withdrew portions of the amount deposited in Court; but because of the condition requiring her to furnish security, she was not able to withdraw the whole amount. She was able to withdraw the balance finally on 30th September, 1954 that is to say, after the High Court had disposed of the appeal. The decree-holder filed an execution petition, in which she claimed interest on the amount which lay in Court and which she could not draw, owing to her inability to furnish security. The Subordinate Judge disallowed this claim for interest. The decree-holder appeals from that order. The claim for interest is the only point that was pressed before me. It seems to me that, in this case, the decree-holder was undoubtedly entitled to interest. When a debtor pays his creditor interest naturally ceases to run, because the debt is paid. Interest will also ordinarily cease to run, when the debtor tenders money to his creditor and the creditor improperly refuses to receive it. But, then, before interest can cease to run, the tender which is made, must be an unconditional tender. A creditor is not bound to accept a tender to which conditions or stipulations are attached. When, in the present case, the judgment-debtor put the money into the Court, and, on his invitation, the Court passed an order that the decree-holder should draw it out only on furnishing security he was not making an unconditional tender. He was in effect only making a tender subject to conditions. No creditor is bound to accept a tender to which conditions are attached-Mr. He was in effect only making a tender subject to conditions. No creditor is bound to accept a tender to which conditions are attached-Mr. Amudachariar, on the other side, referred me to Order 24, rule 3, which runs as follows:- " No interest shall be allowed to the plaintiff on any sum deposited by the defendant from the date of the receipt of such notice, whether the sum deposited is in full of the claim or falls short thereof. It seems to me that this rule will apply only where the decree-holder is in a position to take out the money, and is not prevented from doing so by any orders passed by the Court, on the invitation of the judgment-debtor. In the present case, the Court passed an order, requiring the decree-holder to furnish security before drawing out the amount, and that condition was imposed on the motion of the judg-ment-debtor. To such a situation, Order 24, rule 3, will not apply. The decision in Periakaruppan Chettiar v. Veerappa Chettiar1, Mooka Naicker v. Venkatasami Naidu2and Piara Mal v. Sham Das3, support the view I am taking. In the result, the appeal is allowed to this extent ; the decree-holder will be entitled to interest only up to 22nd July, 1954, when the High Court passed the decree and that too only on that part of the amount which was not withdrawn. There will be no interest on the amounts that were withdrawn. The appellant will be entitled to her costs in this appeal. K.S. ------------- Appeal allowed.