A judgment debtor's deposit in court serves merely as security and does not convey entitlement to the decree holder until certain conditions are satisfied.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner filed O.S.No.35 of 1997 of Sub Court, Palakkad against the respondent for recovery of certain amount as damages. The suit was decreed allowing her to realise from the respondents Rs.1,53,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum and proportionate costs. The petitioner filed E.P.No.7 of 2000 to realise the amount. To the amin deputed to attach the properties of the respondent, it handed over to him a cheque for the amount due under the decree drawn in favour of the Sub Judge. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an appeal and obtained a stay of paying the amount to the petitioner. The amount was deposited first with the respondent bank itself and thereafter with a nationalized bank. The appeal was dismissed. The principal amount deposited with the bank and the interest accrued on it came to Rs.6,22,026/-. The petitioner filed an application to allow her to withdraw this amount. The respondent filed an objection stating that the petitioner is entitled only to the amount payable under the decree, which came to only Rs.3,61,976/- including costs on the trial side and in the execution proceedings. The respondent filed an application to withdraw the amount which is in excess of the amount payable under the decree. The executing court dismissed the petitioner's application and allowed the respondent. This is challenged.

2. Heard.

3. At no point of time the amount was deposited in the name of the petitioner. The cheque was drawn in favour of the Sub Judge. The Sub Judge deposited the amount first in the respondent bank itself and thereafter in a nationalised bank. At no point of time the petitioner was entitled to withdraw the amount. It did not belong to her. It was given only as a security for realisation of the amount payable under the decree. The learned Sub Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in P.S.L.Ramanathan Chettiar and others v. O.R.M.P.R.M.Ramanathan Chettiar (AIR 1968 SC

1047) in which the following observation has been made.

“On principle, it appears to us that the facts of a judgment debtor's depositing a sum in court to purchase peace by way of stay of execution of the decree on terms that the decree holder can draw it out on furnishing security, does not pass title to the money to the decree holder. He can if he likes take the money out in terms of the order, but so long as he does not do it, there is nothing to prevent the judgment debtor from taking it out by furnishing other security, say, of immovable property, if the court allows him to do so and on his losing the appeal putting the decretal amount in court in terms of O.21 R.1 C.P.C in satisfaction of the decree”.

4. There is no doubt that the petitioner could not have claimed the amount deposited with the bank. She could have realised the amount due to her out of that amount. The learned Sub Judge rightly dismissed her application and allowed the respondent's. No interference is called for.

In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.