The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a deposit under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act depends on whether the amount deposited was the amount remaining due on the mortgage on the date of the deposit, and the burden is on the creditor to show the mortgagor's willingness and ability to pay throughout to prevent the cessation of interest.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal raises a question as to the validity of a deposit under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act before it was amended by Act XX of 1929 and Act V of 1930. On 13th April, 1919, the first defendant executed a mortgage in favour of one Sankaranarayanaswami Nayak the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title for a sum of Rs. 1,350. The mortgage deed provided thus:

To this sum of Rs. 1,350, I shall add interest at the rate of Re. 0-14-0 per cent, per mensem and pay the amount of principal and interest due thus on 11th April, 1920 and duly redeem this bond. In default, to the amount of principal and interest accruing due till then, interest shall for the remaining periods be added at the rate of Re. 1-6-0 per cent, per mensem, and re the total of principal and interest, the interest accruing so due once in twelve months shall be added on to the principal, and you shall, whenever required, recover the amounts thus accruing due, along with interest at the said rate of Re. 1-6-0...

2. Subsequent to the date of the mortgage the first defendant sold in the same year the said property which comprised eight items to his wife the fifth defendant. On the 12th July, 1920, the fifth defendant sold five items of property to one Sanniasa Pillai for Rs. 3,000. Part of the consideration was to go in discharge of the mortgage. On 15th September, 1921, the fifth defendant mortgaged the remaining three items to the sixth defendant whose sons are defendants 7, 8 and 9. On 27th November, 1923, Sanniasa Pillai deposited a sum of Rs. 2,144-12-4 in O.P. No. 51 of 1923, a petition under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the amount due and payable under the mortgage up to the date of deposit. Necessary notice was given to the mortgagee but though he did not file any counter alleging what the amount due to him was, he declined to receive the money. The amount remained in deposit for a period of one year and thereafter was withdrawn by Sanniasa Pillai from Court. The mortgagee died in 1926 and the plaintiff succeeded to his property as his heir. On the 9th November, 1927, the plaintiff received Rs. 2,200 from Sanniasa Pillai and released the items sold to him. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit to recover a sum of Rs. 800 being the balance alleged to be still due and payable to him under the mortgage. The contesting defendants are defendants 6 to 9. Their main defence was that the mortgage itself must be deemed to have been discharged by the deposit into Court and by the subsequent receipt of the amount from Sanniasa Pillai. It is conceded that if the deposit in the said O.P. No. 51 of 1923 is held to be valid further interest would cease to run from the date of deposit and the plaintiff vould not be entitled to any relief. The learned District Munsif found that the correct amount that should have been deposited was less by six pies, that is, the amount that should have been deposited was Rs. 2,144-12-10 instead of Rs. 2,144-12-4. Following the ruling in Subbai Goundan v. Palani Goundan (1916)30MLJ607 , he held that as the amount deposited fell short of the amount actually due, there was no valid deposit within the meaning of the section. He therefore gave a decree to the plaintiff as prayed for. The learned Subordinate Judge, while reversing this decision, took the view that the amount deposited was the correct amount. His ground for coming to that conclusion is this : Sanniasa Pillai made an application O.P. No. 51 of 1923 with the lodgment schedule on 23rd November, 1923 and applied for a chalan on the same day for the payment of money to be deposited into the treasury but the Court took four days to issue the necessary chalan and the amount was deposited on the very day on which the chalan was issued; the delay was therefore due to the Court and no litigant should suffer by the default of the Court; in the circumstances the application for chalan was equivalent to deposit and the amount dep