Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This case has had a long history. It was commenced in 1918 and what we hope is the final order, we are now pronouncing in 1936.

2. Before dealing with the appeal we must advert to a certain matter that has happened. The appellant filed an affidavit and persuaded the office to treat the respondent as a lunatic without notice to his counsel on the record. Some person was appointed as his guardian ad litem, whose name was entered in the cause-list in the place of the respondents counsel. The respondent was not a lunatic so found by inquisition and the procedure adopted, we need hardly point out, is extremely irregular. At the request of Mr. Vaidyanatha Aiyar, the respondents counsel, we directed that his name should appear in this days list and whether the respondent is a lunatic or not, he has now had the benefit of being represented by his counsel on the record. His guardian ad litem, we may observe, did neither appear in Court, nor was he represented.

3. The question argued in the appeal is whether the plaintiff can be deemed to have carried out the direction in the decree in question in regard to the deposit of money into Court. That decree was passed