Abdul Latiff Sahib v. Bathula Bibi Ammal

1. In this case there was a decree for the delivery of certain immovable property and for the payment of money. In answer to an application for execution the defendants have set up an alleged payment of Rs. 500 by way of adjustment. Both the lower Courts have overruled their objection under O. 21, R. 2, Cl. 3 of the CPC as the adjustment was not certified. We think they were right. O. 21, R. 2, Cl. (1), says that where the decree—which read with the earlier part of the sentence means a decree of any kind under which money is payable — is adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree-holder shall certify such adjustment to the Court. The decree in the present case is only of the kind dealt with in the section, and the section is therefore applicable. The appellant relies upon Sankaran Nambiar v. Kanara Karup(1) to show that the rule does not apply to decrees which provide for the delivery of immovable property.

2. The section has now been amended so as to apply to decrees of any kind under which money is payable, and we see no reason for refusing to give full effect to its provisions.

3. We may observe that under the Code of 1859 it was held in Baba Mohamed v. Webb(2) that the corresponding provisions as to adjustments were not confined to adjustments of money-decrees. In Sankaran Nambiar v. Kanara Karup the learned Judges relied upon subsequent changes in the Code, but the effect of these changes has been done away with by the insertion in the present section of words rendering it plainly applicable to the present case.

4. This appeal is dismissed with costs.

S.N/R.K

5. Appeal dismissed.