Lokambal Achi, the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 65 of 1943 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore is the appellant before me. On 9th October, 1950, she obtained a decree in that Court for Rs. 12.278-1-0. Defendants 2 to 5 in the suit appealed to this Court in A.S. No. 117 of 1951. While the appeal was pending, Lokambal Achi levied execution. The judgment-debtors then moved this Court for stay of execution and by an order of this Court made on 29th March, 1951, it directed the judgment-debtors to deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 5,000 in cash. The judgment-debtors were further directed to furnish security for the balance of the decree amount and costs. The judgment-debtors deposited Rs. 5,000 on nth April, 1951, but instead of furnishing security in respect of the balance of Rs. 7,496-5-0 they elected to deposit that money into Court. This they did on 25th June, 1951. On 11th July, 1951, the decree-holder applied for a cheque for Rs. 1,056-5-0 stating that it represented the costs of the suit. A cheque was ordered to issue for this amount and this was done apparently on 7th August, 1951. On 13th September, 1955, this Court disposed of Appeal No. 117 of 1951 by remanding the suit to the lower Court for disposal afresh in accordance with the provisions of Act IV of 1938. A revised decree was made by the Subordinate Judge for a sum of Rs. 2,245-13-0 plus costs amounting to Rs. 353-4-0 and subsequent interest on the sum of Rs. 1,700. On 16th August, 1956, the decree-holders were permitted to draw the balance of the decree amount in accordance with the modified decree except for a sum of Rs. 500. In 1956 the judgment-debtors filed E.A. No. 537 of 1956 for a direction to the decree-holders to pay them (1) interest on Rs. 5,000 at 5½ per cent, per annum from 11th April, 1951 to 7th August, 1951 ; (2) interest on Rs. 3,943-11-0 as from 7th August, 1951 up to the date of petition ; and (3) interest on Rs. 7,496-5-0 from 25th June, 1951 up to the date of petition at 5½ per cent. The total interest they claimed was a sum of Rs. 3,233-4-0. The contention of the judgment-debtors that is to say the petitioners in E.A. No 537 of 1956 was that they were entitled to these amounts by way of restitution under section 144, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application observing:

“In the matter of restitution, the Court has to take into consideration both the parties and not only the party who applies for restitution. In this case the decree-holder has not drawn that portion of the deposit amount for which he had to furnish security. It is the decree-holder’s case that he could not furnish security being in impecunious circumstances.”

On appeal, the learned District Judge held:

“As per the revised decree, the decree-holder was entitled to Rs. 1,624-1-0. He has drawn only Rs. 1,056-5-0 the costs awarded to him as per the decree on 15th October, 1951. As he was entitled to Rs. 1,624-1-0 out of the sum of Rs. 5,000 deposited by the petitioners, the latter can claim only interest by way of compensation on the difference i.e., Rs. 5,000 minus Rs. 1,624-1-0=3,375-15-0. I am of opinion that interest at 3 per cent, per annum will be reasonable compensation for the loss sustained by the petitioners in this case. They are therefore entitled to restitution to the extent of Rs. 497-38 nP.”

The decree-holder has now come to this Court in appeal.

Two amounts are involved in the present controversy. One is Rs 7,496-5-0 which the judgment-debtors deposited on 25th June, 1951. They cannot possibly claim interest on this amount because in respect of this amount they were called upon only to furnish security. They were not really called upon to put that money into Court. Instead of furnishing security as they were ordered to do, they elected to put the money into Court. Both the Courts have properly found that the judgment-debtors are not entitled to interest on this amount.

The other sum is the difference between