Payment to one of several joint decree-holders does not give a valid discharge of the decree except to the extent of his share. The other decree-holders are entitled to recover their shares from the judgment debtor.

( 1 ) THE question of law that is involved in this revision petition is whether payment of the decretal amount by the Judgement-debtor to one of the decree-holders of a joint decree outside the Court can be treated as payment in full satisfaction of the decree.

( 2 ) SRI P. V. R. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that such a payment can operate a valid discharge of the entire decree, while Sri M. Chandrasekhara Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondents, contends that payment to one of the decree-holders of a joint decree does not bind the other decree-holders and consequently does not give a valid discharge of the decree.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs suit in S. C. No. 119/1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Narasaraopet was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff was required to pay to the defendants 1 to 3 the suit costs of Rs. 592-95. Hence the defendants filed E. P. No. 101/72 on 4-7-1972 for arrest of the petitioner-plaintiff who is the judgement-debtor. While the E. P. was still pending, the plaintiff-judgement-debtor paid Rs. 592. 00 to the 3rd defendant on 30-7-1972 in full satisfaction of the decree. Having received the said amount, the 3rd defendant passed a receipt to the judgement-debtor. In the said receipt, 3rd defendant stated that he was receiving the amount on behalf of all the other defendants and he would distribute to them their shares from the amount. Then the judgement-debtor-plaintiff filed E. A. No. 362/72 in E. P. No. 101/1972 under O. 21 R. 2 requesting the Court to record full satisfaction of the decree in E. P. No. 101/1972. The executing Court did not record full satisfaction of the decree but gave credit only to 1/3rd of the decretal amount and ordered execution for the balance. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd defendant has no power to receive the entire decretal amount except to the extent of his share and the receipt passed by him does not bind the other decree-holders. It is this finding and the order for payment of the balance amount that are now assailed by the judgement-debtor in this revision.

( 4 ) SRI Sarma contends that as the three defendants who are the decree-holders filed the execution petition jointly and the execution petition was laid for the execution of the joint decree passed against the judgement-debtor-plaintiff and as the Court did not express any doubt or suspicion about the genuineness of the receipt passed by the 3rd defendant, one of the decree-holders, and as the receipt clearly mentions that the 3rd defendant, one of the decree-holders received the decretal amount of Rs. 592. 00 stating that he would distribute to defendants 1 and 2 their shares from out of the amount received by him in discharge of the decretal amount, the Executing Court ought to have held that the receipt passed by defendants 1 and 2, the remaining decree-holders and ought to have recorded full satisfaction of the decretal amount under O. 21 R. 2 and his finding that the receipt passed by the 3rd defendant does not bind defendants 1 and 2 and his order that the judgement-debtor has to pay the balance amount is vitiated with material irregularity.

( 5 ) FROM the contentions of defendants 1 and 2 and also from the fact that the third defendant who passed receipt stating that he would distribute to defendants 1 and 2 their shares from the decretal amount did not choose to come into the box to explain that he was authorised by the defendants 1 and 2 to receive the entire decretal amount, it is clear that defendants 1 and 2 did not authorise the 3rd defendant to receive their shares on their behalf.

( 6 ) WHEN it is so clear that defendants 1 and 2 did not authorise the 3rd defendant to receive their shares in the decretal amount, payment of the entire decretal amount to the third defendant does not give valid discharge of the decree except to the extent of his share and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to recover their shares in the decretal amount and the judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document