Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sapru and Chandiramani, JJ.
SALTANAT BEGAM - Appellant
Versus
SYED MOHD.SAADAT ALI KHAN - Respondents
Exn. Decree Appeal 54 Of 1947
Decided On : 07/26/1950
DECREE - EXECUTION - MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE - DECREE FOR FUTURE MAINTENANCE - WHETHER EXECUTABLE - INTERPRETATION OF DECREE AND TERMS OF COMPROMISE - INTEREST ON ARREARS OF MAINTENANCE - ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE IN EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS - ORDER 41, RULE 27, CIVIL P. C.
Fact of the Case:
In an interpleader suit, a compromise was reached whereby the appellant was to receive a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- from the respondent. The compromise was incorporated into a decree of the Court. The appellant applied for execution of the decree for arrears of maintenance allowance, interest, and costs. The respondent objected, contending that the decree was merely declaratory and not executable.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the decree was not merely declaratory but was executable. It interpreted the decree and the terms of the compromise to mean that there was an order to the respondent to pay the maintenance allowance regularly, and that the appellant was entitled to recover the same in execution proceedings. The Court also held that the appellant was entitled to interest on the arrears of maintenance allowance from the date of default up to the date of payment.
Issues: 1. Whether the decree was merely declaratory or executable. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the arrears of maintenance allowance.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the decree and the terms of the compromise to mean that there was an order to the respondent to pay the maintenance allowance regularly, and that the appellant was entitled to recover the same in execution proceedings. 2. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to interest on the arrears of maintenance allowance from the date of default up to the date of payment, as the respondent's failure to pay on the due date caused loss to the appellant.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below, and directed that the execution application be disposed of according to law. The appellant was entitled to costs of the execution in the execution Court and also to six per cent. interest on the money due for maintenance allowance from the date of default up to the date of payment.
( 1 ) THIS is a decree-holders appeal against the decree of Shri R. P. Verma, Civil Judge, mohanlalganj, Lucknow, dated 24-9-1947, holding that the decree in execution is declaratory only and therefore cannot be executed.
( 2 ) IT appears that while the estate of Nanpara was under the Court of Wards, the proprietor, Raja mohammad Siddique, executed a will on 8-1-1906. He had at the time four wives, Rani Saltanat begam, the present appellant, Rani Dilaphja, Rani Champa and Rani Nasim Sahri, All these ranis were under the will given the right to adopt a son to the Raja. The right was to be exercised by Rani Nasim Sahri first within a certain specified time, and if she failed to do so, the power was to be exercised next by Rani Saltanat Begam, appellant, and in case of default, the other two Ranis in their turn were given the power to adopt. The right of adoption was to be forfeited on the remarriage of a wife. The Raja of Nanpara had two sisters, Rani Kafiiz Begam of utraula and Rani Sarfaraz Bagam of Mohamdi. After his death on 30-12-1907, disputes arose in respect of the estate, and among the rival claimants were the four widows and the two sisters and some others. The Court of Wards, in charge of the Nanpara Estate, thereupon filed an interpleader suit on 28-1-1908. In May, 1908, Rani Nasim Sahri married again and so she lost her right of adoption. On 9-3-1909, Rani Saltanat Begam, appellant, adopted Raja Syed mohammad Saadat Ali Khan, the present respondent. He was impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit. On 7-9-1910, there was a compromise with Rani Qamar Zamani Begam who had apparently been divorced by Raja Mohammad Siddique during his lifetime. On 4-11-1911, judgment was delivered in the interpleader suit. In the suit itself Rani Saltanat begam, appellant, had put in a claim to the estate and had also claimei certain maintenance allowance, certain dower debt and some jewellery. It was held in the suit that these items of property, including maintenance were beyond the scope of the interpleader suit, and Rani saltanat Begams claim was accordingly dismissed. She appealed to the Court of the Judicial commissioner, specifically claiming her dower, jewellery and maintenance allowance. On 22-8-1912, there was a compromise and it was agreed that certain sums of money shall be payable to the widows, including Rs. 1,87,500/- as the dower debt to Rani Saltanat Begam, and that a monthly allowance of Rs. 6450/- shall be paid to various persons, including Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rani Saltanat Begam. This compromise was incorporated in a decree of the Court on 28-5-1914, in the following words: "it is ordered and decreed that the appeal be and is hereby allowed to the extent mentioned in the terms attached herewith. " the relevant terms of the compromise were then attached to the decree.
( 3 ) ON 15/16-4-1947, Rani Saltanat Begam applied for execution of the decree alleging that her monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 4000/-had not been paid to her for the period 1-2-1947, to 31-3-1947. She claimed interest at the rate of -/8/- per cent. per month for these two months by way of damages. She also claimed the costs of execution and interest during execution. She alleged that nothing had been paid for the period in question. She prayed that the transfer certificate under Section 39, Civil P. C. be sent to the Civil Judge, Lucknow, because the judgment-debtor, Raja Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan, respondent, lives in Lucknow within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Lucknow. The judgment-debtor objected to the execution on several grounds. He contended that the decree had been satisfied for the fall amount of Rs. 8000/- which he had sent by cheque before the service of notice on the general agent of the judgment-debtor on 8-5-1947. He further said that no damages by way of interest and no costs of execution could be granted. He also contended that the decree itself was purely declaratory and therefore was not cap
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
