- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Krishnan v. Dorarajan Chettiar
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The revision petitioners are the respondents in E.A. No. 223 of 1979 arising from O.S. No. 299 of 1972 in the Munsiff's Court, Chittur. In execution of the decree (E.P. No. 98 of 1979), an item of paddy field together with the standing crops was attached by the Amin (Rw-1). After attachment, the Amin entrusted the crops to the present petitioners and one Manikkan upon their executing a bond dated 16-3-1979.
Terms of the bond: the executants undertook to look after the crops and to deliver the property without damage when ordered by the Court; in default they agreed to deposit Rs. 3,450/- or such amount as the Court would direct towards the value of the crops.
The decree-holder filed E.A. No. 233 of 1979 on 24-3-1979 alleging that the petitioners and the judgment-debtor harvested and removed the crops and sought directions to have the kychitdars deposit the value or to recover the amount by arrest and detention. The petitioners objected, denying that the crops were entrusted to them, asserting illiteracy and that they were asked to sign only as persons present at the attachment, and denying liability under the bond.
Evidence: The Amin gave evidence as Rw-1 stating that he attached and entrusted the crops and that he read and explained the kychit before signature. The petitioners gave evidence as Rw-2 and Rw-3 admitting signatures (Rw-2 stating he could only sign his name; Rw-3 stated he was illiterate and put his thumb impression). The learned Munsiff found that the petitioners signed knowing the contents and held them liable to deposit the bond amount; that order is the subject of the present revision petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioners were aware of the contents of the bond they signed and therefore liable under it.
- Whether the bond executed by the petitioners falls within the ambit of Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is enforceable in execution proceedings on that basis.
- If the bond does not fall strictly within Section 145 CPC, whether the Court may nevertheless enforce it under its inherent powers or other principles.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners denied that the crops were entrusted to them by the Amin and said they signed only as persons present at the time of attachment.
- They asserted illiteracy (one could only sign, the other put thumb impression) and said they did not know the contents of the document and therefore are not liable under the bond.
- They contended that the bond is not enforceable under Section 145 CPC because it was not executed pursuant to any order of the Court calling upon them to execute such a bond.
- The petitioners relied on a number of rulings (as cited in the opinion) to support the contention that the bond does not fall within Section 145 and is not enforceable in execution proceedings under that section.
Respondent / Decree-Holder's Arguments
- The decree-holder alleged the petitioners (with the judgment-debtor) harvested and removed the crops and sought enforcement (deposit of value) by the kychitdars.
- The respondent relied on the Amin's testimony that he read over and explained the kychit to the executants before they signed.
- The learned counsel for the respondents relied on several authorities (including Jagat Narain v. Nizamuddin and others) in support of their position; the opinion records reliance placed by respondent's counsel on specific decisions, with the court evaluating their relevance.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jagat Narain v. Nizamuddin, AIR 1933 Allahabad 385 | Held that watchmen appointed by a commissioner who locked goods were not custodians of attached articles and did not become sureties within the meaning of S.145 CPC. | The court held that this decision had no application to the present case. |
| Ranhoc v. Mt. Gandiva, AIR 1935 Allahabad 768 | Held that a supurddar entrusted with crops was not a surety within S.145 CPC; the bond executed by him could not be enforced in execution proceedings. | The court noted the ruling but observed that terms of the bond in that case were not available; the decision does not dictate the outcome here. |
| Chellam v. Ramalingam, AIR 1956 Madras 201 | Question of whether a petition for execution against executants of a surety bond would save limitation against the judgment-debtor. | The court observed that the point in that decision did not arise for consideration in the present case. |
| Chouthi Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1080 | Deals with the scope of a prohibition order under Order XXI Rule 46 CPC; not concerned with enforcement of a bond. | The court observed the decision was inapplicable to the bond-enforcement question before it. |
| Korathu v. Gopalan Nair, AIR 1952 TC 237 | Considered bonds executed as condition precedent for stay of delivery; Division Bench doubted strict application of S.145 but held bonds could be enforced under the inherent powers of the Court after reviewing case law (including Privy Council decisions). | The court relied on this line of reasoning: even where S.145 is not strictly applicable, the Court may enforce such security bonds under its general/inherent jurisdiction. The principle was applied to sustain enforceability of the bond in the instant case. |
| Sadasiva Pillai v. Ramalinga Pillai, 2 I.A. 219 | Authority cited in the Korathu review of case law relating to court's jurisdiction to enforce bonds. | Referenced as part of the jurisprudential foundation for enforcing bonds under inherent powers (via Korathu). |
| Raj Raghubar Singh v. Jai Indra Bahadur, 42 All. 158 (PC) | Privy Council decision cited in the jurisprudential review in Korathu concerning enforcement powers. | Referenced as part of authorities supporting enforcement under inherent jurisdiction (via Korathu). |
| Rohani Ramandhwaj v. Har Prasad, AIR 1943 P.C. 189 | Privy Council authority cited in the Korathu review. | Referenced by the court as part of the body of decisions reviewed in Korathu. |
| Muthuswami Pillai v. Manikka Mooppan, AIR 1936 Mad. 990 | Case cited in the Korathu review of authorities about enforceability and court powers. | Referenced as part of the corpus supporting inherent jurisdiction to enforce bonds where S.145 may not strictly apply. |
| Narayanan Pandalai v. Vishnu Namburi, 20 TLJ. 505 | Case cited in the Korathu review supporting court's authority. | Referenced by the court as one of the decisions considered in Korathu. |
| Chevunni v. Lexmidas Maranji, 23 Cochin 408 | Case cited in the Korathu review supporting enforcement by court's inherent powers. | Referenced as part of the jurisprudential foundation relied upon in Korathu and applied by the court here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded in two principal strands of reasoning: (A) whether the petitioners knowingly executed the bond; and (B) whether the bond is enforceable notwithstanding S.145 CPC.
(A) Knowledge of the document and liability under the bond
- The Amin (Rw-1) gave categorical evidence that he read over the kychit and explained its contents to the executants before they signed.
- The petitioners admitted their signatures (one admitting he could only sign; the other admitting thumb impression), but did not positively rebut the Amin's evidence that the document was read and explained.
- The court placed weight on the fact that the petitioners had earlier filed I.A. No. 191 of 1979 complaining of theft of the crops entrusted to them, treating that admission as indicating awareness that they were responsible for the crops.
- On these bases the trial court's finding that the petitioners knew the contents and were therefore liable under the bond was upheld; the claim of ignorance was rejected.
(B) Applicability of Section 145 CPC and enforceability of the bond
- The court analyzed Section 145 CPC, which contemplates furnishing security or guarantee (a) for performance of a decree, (b) for restitution of property taken in execution, or (c) for payment of money or fulfilment of a condition imposed under an order of the Court.
- It was acknowledged that the present bond was not executed for performance of a decree nor for restitution, nor did the bond on its face show that it was executed pursuant to a specific court order (a requirement for clause (c) of S.145).
- The court considered authorities relied upon by both sides. Several decisions cited by parties did not directly address enforceability in the present factual matrix or were found inapplicable.
- Importantly, the court relied on the reasoning in Korathu v. Gopalan Nair and the body of cases reviewed in that decision, which hold that even where security bonds do not strictly fall within S.145 CPC, the Court possesses general or inherent jurisdiction to enforce such bonds.
- Given that the bond contained an undertaking to deposit Rs. 3,450/- in default and a clause declaring the bond enforceable without recourse to the original suit, the court concluded that the petitioners could not repudiate their liability and that the bond was enforceable in the execution proceedings — not necessarily under the strict letter of S.145 but under the Court's inherent powers and the settled principles reviewed in Korathu.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revision petition is DISMISSED.
Immediate consequences stated by the court:
- The petitioners were given one month to deposit the amount fixed (Rs. 3,450/- or such amount as may be directed in execution).
- The parties were to bear their costs ("The parties will suffer their costs").
Broader implications: The court applied the principle, drawn from Korathu and the body of authorities reviewed therein, that even where a security bond does not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 145 CPC, a court may nevertheless enforce the bond in execution proceedings pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction. The opinion does not purport to lay down a novel legal principle beyond this application to the facts; the decision enforces the bond in the specific factual and procedural context before the Court.
1. The revision petitioners are the respondents in E.A No. 223 of 1979 in O.S No. 299 of 1972, of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur. In execution of the decree in the above suit as per E.P No. 98 of 1979, an item of paddy field along with the crops standing thereon, was attached by Rw-1, Amin, as per orders of the Court. After attachment the Amin entrusted the crops to the present petitioners and one Manikkan on their executing a bond dated 16-3-1979. Under the terms of the bond the executants undertook to look after the crops and to deliver over the property without any damage to the crops as and when required by the Court. In default of doing so, they undertook to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,450/- or such amounts as the Court would direct them to deposit towards the value of the crops. E.A No. 233 of 1979 was filed by the decree-holder on 24-3-1979 alleging that the present petitioners and the judgment-debtor together harvested the crops and removed the same. The decree-holder therefore, requested the Court to issue direction to the kychitdars to deposit the value of the crops as per the kychit, and if default is made, to recover the amount by arrest and detention of the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections to the above motion. They denied that the crops were entrusted to them by the Amin. The property is close to their own residence and the Amin made them sign in the document only as persons present at the time of attachment. The petitioners were illiterate coolies and as such they did not know the contents. They denied their liability to pay any amount under the bond.
2. In support of the contention they examined themselves as Rw-2 and Rw-3 and also the Amin as Rw-1. The Amin, as Rw-1 deposed to the fact of attachment and the entrustment of the crops on kychit to the petitioners. The petitioners as Rws. 2 and 3 denied that they knew the contents of the document. They, however, admitted their signature. According to Rw-2, he knew only to write his signature and did not know to read and write. Rw-3 stated in his evidence that he is illterate and that he put only his thumb impression.
3. The learned Munsiff, however, held that the petitioners put their signature knowing the contents of the document. Reference is made to E.A No. 191 of 1979. That was a petition filed by the petitioners prior to the present proceedings, wherein they contended that the crops in the property entrusted to them on kychit had been taken away by some strangers without their knowledge. The admission in that petition regarding execution of the kychit, according to the executing court, belies the contention now put forward, that the petitioners were not aware of the contents of the document. The Court, therefore, over-ruled the objection, and, held that the petitioners, as also the first kychitdar, were liable to deposit the amount mentioned in the bond. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioners in this revision petition.
4. The contention, that the petitioners were not aware that the document they signed is a bond containing an undertaking to pay the amount mentioned therein, cannot be sustained. It is no doubt true, that the evidence in the case may show that the second executant, who is the second petitioner here, is illiterate. But, the Amin, as Rw-1, has categorically stated in his evidence that he read over the kychit and explained the contents thereof to the executants before they signed the document. It is noted that the first executant has not raised any objection against his liability under the bond. It is significant that in spite of the fact that the Amin deposed that the document was read over to the executants no case to the contra has been spoken to by Rw-2 or Rw-3. The circumstance that immediately after the execution of the document the petitioners filed I.A No. 191 of 1979 complaining about the theft of the crops also indicates that they were aware that they were the persons who were in charge of the crops. Therefore, the case that the petitioners did not know the contents of the document, which they signed, has to be discarded.
5. On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that the bond executed by them is not enforceable as it does not fall within the purview of S. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A number of rulings have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the contention. It is argued that under S. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure a bond to be enforceable must have been executed as per order of Court. In the present case, it is pointed out that there was no order of the Court calling upon the respondents to execute the bond.
6. S. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates furnishing of a security or guarantee: (a) for the performance of any decree or any part thereof; (b) for the restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree; and (c) for the payment of any money, or for the fulfilment of any condition imposed on any person, under an order of the Court in any suit or in any proceedings consequent thereon. It is true that the bond in the present case was not executed for the performance of any decree; neither was it for the restitution of any property. It contains an undertaking to look after the crops and produce the same at the place and time as ordered by the Court and in default to deposit Rs. 3,450/- or such amount as would be ordered by the Court. At the same time the bond does not show that the entrustment of the crops and the execution of the bond were as per specific orders of the Court, which is one of the conditions required for the bond to fall under clause (c) of S. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the decision in Jagat Narain v. Nizamuddin, AIR. 1933 Allahabad 385. In that case a commissioner appointed to attach goods locked the goods in the shop and appointed two watchmen. In a proceeding against the watchmen it was held that they were not the custodians of the articles attached; nor did they become liable as sureties within the meaning of S. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision has no application in the present case. Another decision referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is Ranhoc v. Mt. Gandiva, AIR. 1935 Allahabad 768. In that case the Amin, who attached certain crops belonging to the judgment-debtor, entrusted it to a supurddar, who disobeyed an order of the Court. The court ordered him to pay a sum of Rs. 229-10-0 with costs. It was held, that the supurddar was not a surety within the meaning of S. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore, the bond executed by him could not be enforced in execution proceedings. The terms of the bond, if any are not available. Another case relied upon is Chellam v. Ramalingam, AIR. 1956 Madras 201. The question involved in that case was whether a petition for execution against the executants of the surety bond would save limitation against the judgment-debtor. The point involved in the present case did not arise for consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chouthi Prasad v. Union of India AIR. 1967 SC. 1080. The decision deals with the scope of a prohibition order under O. XXI R. 46 and no question of enforcement of a bond arose for consideration. Reliance was then placed on Korathu v. Gopalan Nair, AIR. 1952 TC. 237. In pursuance of a decree for redemption the decree-holder in that case deposited the mortgage amount and applied for delivery of the property. There were appeal and second appeal by the mortgagee and as a condition precedent for stay of delivery security bonds were executed by the mortgagee for mesne profits. On the appeal and the second appeal being dismissed the bonds were sought to be enforced, when objection was raised that the bonds did not conform to the requirements of S. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that they were not enforceable in execution. A Division Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court held, that it was doubtful that the case came under S. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court after a review of the case law on the point, which included decisions of the Privy Council, held, that the bond was enforceable under the inherent powers of the Court. (See Sadasiva Pillai v. Ramalinga Pillai, 2 I.A 219, Raj Raghubar Singh v. Jai Indra Bahadur, 42 All. 158 (PC), Rohani Ramandhwaj v. Har Prasad, AIR. 1943 P.C 189, Muthuswami Pillai v. Manikka Mooppan, AIR. 1936 Mad. 990, Narayanan Pandalai v. Vishnu Namburi 20 TLJ. 505, and Chevunni v. Lexmidas Maranji, 23 Cochin 408). The decision, no doubt, supports the case of the petitioners, that S. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application. But, at the same time, it does not in any way support their case that the bond is not enforceable. What is laid down is that eventhough the security bond may not fall strictly within the four corners of S. 145, the court has general jurisdiction over the subject matter involved and therefore the bond can be enforced in exercise of the inherent powers of the court. The principle would apply in the instant case. The petitioners, no doubt, did not make themselves liable for the decree; nor is it made out that the bond was executed under orders of the Court. But under the terms of the bond they undertook to deposit Rs. 3,450/- in default of delivery of the crops attached. There is also a clause that the bond is enforceable without recourse to an original suit. It is therefore not open to the petitioners to resile and contend either that they are not liable under the bond or that the bond is not enforceable in summary proceedings in the course of execution of the decree.
8. The revision petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioners are given a month's time to deposit the amount. The parties will suffer their costs.
9. Dismissed.
Alert