Important point
A judgment is not be read as a statute and must be construed upon reading the same as a whole.

Headnote:Judgment—Interpretation of—Not to be read as a statute—Judgment must be construed upon reading same as a whole and for that purpose attending circumstances may be taken into consideration—Application for judicial separation, maintenance and return of ornaments/property filed by respondent wife against appellant was decreed by trial Court—Court directed that in event the ornaments were not returned, respondent would be entitled to value thereof at Rs. 3,25,655/- — High Court set aside decree for judicial separation in appeal on a finding that marriage between parties was null and void but maintained rest of the decree—In cross appeal, High Court directed appellant to pay interest at 9% on the amount Rs. 3,25,655 in case ornaments were not returned—SLP against High Court judgment awarding maintenance despite findings that marriage was nullity was dismissed by Supreme Court—Appellant returned ornaments to respondent on 2-7-2003 in Court—Family Court in view of earlier High Court judgment dt. 20-1-2000 directed appellant to pay interest on amount Rs. 3,25,655/- from date of original decree —Order was upheld in appeal by High Court—Appeal—Question of appellant paying the price of ornaments with interest could have arisen only if appellant did not return ornaments—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
Held : A judgment, as is well known, is not to be read as a statute. A judgment, it is trite, must be construed upon reading the same as a whole. For the said purpose the attendant circumstances may also be taken into consideration. [Islamic Academy of Education and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others — (2003) 6 SCC 697, M/s Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. JT 2005 (2) SC 8 and P.S. Sathappan vs. Andhra Bank Ltd.—(2004) 11 SCC 672]. The Family Court in its judgment and order dated 9.10.1995 did not grant any interest on the said sum of Rs. 3,25,655/-. An alternative, decree was only passed to the effect that the Respondent would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,25,655/- in the event, the ornaments are not returned to the Respondent by the Appellant herein. A decree in the nature of mandatory injunction directing a party to the suit to deliver certain movable property in favour of the Appellant cannot be equated with a decree for payment of a specified sum. The High Court moreover did not allow the cross objection filed by the Respondent herein in its entirety. It was allowed only in part. The question of the Appellant’s paying the price of the ornaments’ value at Rs. 3,25,655/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the decree of the Family Court dated 9.10.1995 could have been the subject-matter of the Execution Petition only if the Appellant did not return the same to the Respondent within a reasonable time. The High Court did not interfere with the judgment of the Family Court to the effect that the Respondent was entitled to get back all the ornaments except the fact that in case the said ornaments or articles are not returned by him, he will have to pay interest on the price thereof. Thus, the question of payment of interest would have arisen only in the event of the Appellant’s failure to return the ornaments to the Respondent. (Paras 20 to 24)
Thus, the direction upon the Appellant to return the ornaments is not concomitant with the order to pay the price thereof. The second direction was, thus, a conditional one which comes into operation only upon non-fulfillment of the first direction. Thus, by reason of the first direction no decree to pay interest on a specified sum was passed. In that view of the matter, if no occasion had arisen for paying the aforementioned sum of Rs. 3,25,655/-, the question of paying any interest thereupon would not arise. Neither the Family Court nor the High Court had directed payment of any interest on the ground of deliberate and wrongful withholding of the ornaments by the Appellant. Even on the said count, no interest could have been directed to be paid but what could be directed was payment of compensation. As this Court in its earlier judgment had no occasion to consider the effect of the judgment dated 9.10.1995 passed by the Family Court, Bombay and the judgment dated 20.1.2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay, the same did not attain finality. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable which is set aside accordingly. (Paras 27 to 29)

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of the judgment and order dated 20.1.2000 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.3.2004 passed in C.R. No. 110 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by the Appellant herein from an order dated 11.9.2003 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Ratlam in execution of a transferred decree from Family Court, Bombay, was dismissed.

Legal Proceedings Between The Parties :

3. An application for judicial separation, maintenance and return of ornaments/property etc. was filed by the Respondent against the Appellant herein before the Family Court at Bombay purported to be in terms of Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. An alternative prayer was made therein to the effect that if the ornaments were not returned, a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,25,655/- together with interest thereon from the date of filing of the application may be passed. In the said proceeding, the Appellant herein raised, inter alia, a contention that the marriage between the parties was a nullity. By a judgment and order dated 9.10.1995, the Family Court allowed the said application in part by granting a decree of judicial separation, maintenance and return of the ornaments. It was, however, directed that in the event the ornaments were not returned the Respondent would be entitled to the value thereof, namely, a sum of Rs. 3,25,655/-. However, no decree of interest on the said sum was passed.

4. The Family Court directed:

“The respondent is also directed to return all the articles mentioned in Exh. A-1 attached to the petition comprising of articles described in Clause A to G totaling to Rs. 3,25,655/-. If he fails to return the articles mentioned therein as far as possible within one month of the date of this decree, he shall pay the value thereof mentioned against the said articles not returned as mentioned in the list.”

5. The Appellant herein preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court. The Respondent filed a cross-objection in the said appeal as regard non-grant of interest on the said sum. By a judgment and order dated 20.1.2000, the High Court set aside the decree of judicial separation upon a declaration that the marriage between the parties herein was null and void. The decree as regard grant of maintenance to the Respondent herein as also her daughter was, however, upheld. The High Court observed:

“As regards the claim of the Respondent for return of her ornaments and other valuable articles, we find that the Trial Court has taken into consideration both oral and documentary evidence in that respect and arrived at the conclusion that the Respondent wife is entitled to get back all the Ornaments and Articles mentioned in list Exhibit `A’ to the petition or in the alternative price thereof. We do not see any reason to interfere with that, except the fact that in case the said ornaments or articles are not returned by the Appellant to the Respondent, he will have to pay interest on the price thereof which has been quantified at Rs. 3,25,655/-. In our opinion interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of the decree of the Trial Court i.e. 9.10.1995 will be proper and reasonable interest.” (Emphasis supplied)

However, it was directed:

“...We, however, maintain the decree of the Trial Court in all other respects. We further partly allow the cross-objections of the Respondent wife to the extent of granting interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the price of Rs. 3,25,655/- from the date of the decree of the Trial Court i.e. 9.10.1995..”

6. The Appellant herein, thus, was not directed to return the ornaments or articles to the Respondents within a time frame. The only direction was to pay interest on the price thereof from the date of the decree of the Trial Court i.e. 9.10.1995 only in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 477

Important pointA judgment is not be read as a statute and must be construed upon reading the same as a whole.

Cases Referred (3)

Important point
A judgment is not be read as a statute and must be construed upon reading the same as a whole.