Alagappa Chettiar and Others vs Muthukumara Chettiar

Abdur Rahim, J.—In this case there was a sum of money in deposit in Court and there was a dispute as to who was entitled to that money--

the appellants whose claim was based on a trust-deed, or the judgment-debtor of the respondent. The appellants filed a suit to establish their right

and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from drawing the money. Thereupon the respondent, on giving an undertaking to

the Court, was allowed to draw the money. The appellants succeeded in establishing their title and the only question now before us in the Letters

Patent Appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to interest on the amount drawn by the respondent till the date when he paid back the amount.

Mr. Justice Srinivasa Ayyangar has decided against the appellants'' contention on the ground that the undertaking given by the respondent did not

provide for the payment of interest. We do not think that this is a conclusive factor. There is no express provision in the CPC or any of the other

Indian Acts to which we have been referred which covers the question. Section 144 of the Code provides for proper orders being passed as

regards payment of interest or damages in cases of restitution. This is not exactly a case of restitution though the principle of that section has been

applied to a case somewhat similar to this by a Bench of this Court in Subbarayudu v. Yerram Setti Seshasani ILR (1917) Mad. 299. We have

also been referred to a decision of the Patna High Court in Indra Chund Bothra v. Mr. A.H. Forbes (1917) 2 P.L.J. 149. There also, though it

was not a case exactly covered by Section 144, the principle of that section was applied. The Privy Council has laid down the principle applicable

to such cases in Rodger v. the Comptoir D''Escompte De Paris (1871) L.R. 3 . Here the facts show that the appellants were entitled to this money

and the respondent who had no title to the money obtained it from the Court by representing that he had a title. The principle therefore applies that

having had wrongful use of the appellants'' money, he is bound to pay interest during the time he had the use of the money.

The learned pleader for the respondent argued that the Court had no power to order the payment of the money or interest thereon in this

proceeding. But the order is simply to enforce the undertaking which was given by the respondent to the Court and we have no doubt in holding

that the Court had inherent power to enforce that undertaking on the faith of which the respondent obtained the money. We must allow the appeals

reversing the judgment of the learned Judge and the decree will be varied in this way. The decree will provide for payment of interest by the

respondent at 6 per cent from the date he drew the money from Court till the date of repayment. The respondent must bear the costs of these

appeals and of the revision petitions. The memoranda of objections are dismissed.