Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1458 (AP)

Vojjala Praameela v. S. V. Suryanarayana Raju

2003-11-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners filed o. P. No. 678/1990 in the Motor Accidents tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, nalgonda claiming compensation, on account of death of Sri Vittal, who was the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the other petitioners. The Tribunal passed award dated 23-11-1993 for a sum of Rs. 2,84,000. 00 together with interest at 15% and costs of rs. 8,264/ -. ( 2 ) THE New India Assurance company Limited, the 2nd respondent, deposited a sum of Rs. 2,28,449-00. This included Rs. 1,52,000. 00 of awarded amount, interest and costs. Balance of the amount was not deposited. Hence, the petitioners filed I. A. No. 2935/2001 under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short the Act ), for issuance of a Certificate directing the District Collector, Krishna, to recover the compensation from the 2nd respondent, as arrears of land revenue. ( 3 ) THE application was resisted by the 2nd respondent. It was contended that they wanted to prefer an appeal against the Award in OP No. 678/1990 and at that time, the petitioners herein entered into a compromise to receive a sum of rs. 1,52,000/- with interest and cost, in lieu of their claim under the Award and that the said amount was paid. It was also their contention that the petitioners are estopped from claiming the amount by filing IA, having received the amount on the basis of a compromise and consent. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the 2nd respondent and rejected the IA through orders dated 9-8-2002. Hence this revision. ( 4 ) SRI A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Award was for a sum of Rs. 2,84,000. 00 with 15% interest and costs and nothing short of payment of the same would discharge the liability of the 2nd respondent. He further contends that in the absence of any compromise recorded by the Court or certification of full satisfaction of the decree/ award under Rule 2 of Order XXI of CPC, the petitioners cannot be denied their right to recover the amount. ( 5 ) SRI M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that though the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,84,000. ( 5 ) SRI M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that though the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,84,000. 00 together with interest and costs, with a view to avoid delay in realisation of the amount, the petitioners came forward with an offer to receive Rs. 1,52,000. 00 with interest and costs in full satisfaction of the award and that an ia narrating these aspects was filed in the tribunal also. He submits that having represented to the 2nd respondent that the receipt of the said amount would be in full and of the Award, the petitioners cannot turn round and claim the balance. It is also his case that but for the representation made by the petitioners; the 2nd respondent would have pursued the appeal, which was presented by it. ( 6 ) IT is a matter of record that the tribunal passed an Award on 23-11-1993 in op No. 678/1990 for a sum of Rs. 2,84,000. 00 with interest at 15% and costs. The 2nd respondent deposited a sum of rs. 2,28,449/-, which included some portion of the principal amount, interest and costs. It is stated that the petitioners came forward with a plea that on receiving the said amount, they would forego the rest of the claim under the Award. On an earlier occasion, the petitioners filed EP no. 51/98 and the same was dismissed for default on 22-2-1999. For the balance of the amount, they filed IA. No. 2935/2001 under Section 174 of the Act. The said provision enables the beneficiary of an award to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, on a certificate being issued by the Tribunal to that effect. On the plea taken by the 2nd respondent that the claim under the Award stood settled with the payment of Rs. 1,52,000. 00 together with some interest and costs, the Tribunal rejected the LA. ( 7 ) WHENEVER a Civil Court passes any decree, it is required to be complied within its entirety. If the Decree Holder and the judgment Debtor enter into an agreement or settlement, as regards the mutual rights and obligations under the said decree, the same can be given effect to, if only it is recorded by the Court. Order XXI of CPC deals with the mode of execution of decrees. If the Decree Holder and the judgment Debtor enter into an agreement or settlement, as regards the mutual rights and obligations under the said decree, the same can be given effect to, if only it is recorded by the Court. Order XXI of CPC deals with the mode of execution of decrees. Rules 1 and 2 specifically deal with the money decrees. Rule 1 enlists the various modes of payment of money under the decree. Rule 2 mandates that where the money payable under the decree is paid out of the Court, either in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of the Decree Holder, he shall certify such payment or adjustment, and that the Court shall record the same. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of Order XXI of CPC declares that any payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as provided under the preceding provisions, shall not be recognised by the Court executing the decree. ( 8 ) THE effect of payment of money under a decree out of Court, and not certified by a Court, fell for consideration in p. Narasaiah v. P. Raji Reddy, 1988 (2) alt 249 . In that case, the Judgment Debtor paid a substantial amount under decree to the Decree Holder outside the Court towards the full and final settlement to the claim under the decree. However, that payment was neither certified by the Decree Holder nor recorded by the Court. There was not much of a controversy as to the facrum of payment. The matter was heard by a Division bench. One of the learned Judges took the view that once the facrum of payment is proved, absence of certification does not entitle the Decree Holder to claim the entire amount under the decree. The other learned judge differed on this aspect. The matter was referred to another learned Judge. His lordship took the view that uncertified payments cannot be taken into account. Ultimately, the majority view emerged to the effect that as long as any amount, which is paid outside the Court, is not certified, the same cannot be taken into account in view of the prohibition contained under sub- rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order XXI of CPC. ( 9 ) REVERTING to the facts of the case, it is a matter of record that the 2nd respondent paid a sum of Rs. 2,28,449. 00. ( 9 ) REVERTING to the facts of the case, it is a matter of record that the 2nd respondent paid a sum of Rs. 2,28,449. 00. This payment was made outside the Court. It did not represent the total decretal amount. This payment was neither certified by the petitioners nor recorded by the Court, as provided for under Rule 2 of Order XXI of CPC. Strictly speaking, the petitioners were entitled to claim the entire decretal amount. In all fairness, they restricted the present IA to the balance of the amount. The 2nd respondent was not entitled to claim that the entire decree stood satisfied or discharged. The Tribunal did not take this aspect into account. ( 10 ) THE order under revision is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal, taking the legal position referred to above into account. The civil Revision Petition is allowed with no order as to costs.