Giridharadoss Company, Proprietors, Sowcar Lodd Govindass Krishnadoss and Others vs Para Appadurai and Others

These appeals arise out of applications filed by landholders for enforcing the terms of a decree fixing a certain time for payments and ordering

eviction of the tenants from the land in default of payments within that time. The decree that is sought to be executed, decree in A.S. No. 49 of

1919, Temporary Sub-Court, Vellore, after directing the defendant to pay rent to the plaintiffs mesne profits and costs, in paragraph 4 stated ""that,

if the defendant pays plaintiffs the arrears of rent together with interest at 6 per cent per annum and costs in both courts on or before 20th

February, 1920, he be relieved as against forfeiture and, in case of default, the defendant be evicted and the plaintiffs be put in possession of the

respective land"". The respondents before us not Having paid their dues under the decree before the 20th-of February, 1920, the plaintiffs applied

for enforcing the terms and getting possession of the property. It has now Been found by the lower courts that the payments made by the

respondents were after the specified date, namely, 20th February, 1920. These payments were all accepted by the plaintiffs. The lower courts

construing"" the decree as a consent decree allowed relief against forfeiture and dismissed the plaintiff''s applications. It is now argued that since the

decree is not a consent decree no relief against forfeiture can be granted. No decision has been brought to our notice where relief against forfeiture

has been granted in connection with decrees other than consent decrees. The case in Krishnarao Pandurang Barve Vs. Balvant Keshav Patil, must

be treated as a decision on the special facts of that case. The main argument on behalf of the respondents is that the plaintiffs have already received

money due to them under the decree and that therefore it is not open to them to proceed with these applications. On a construction of the decree

we think it is open to the plaintiffs to enforce payment of the money even if the respondents did not pay, by resorting to court. Therefore, the fact

that they have received the amounts when paid by the respondents cannot be allowed to influence the decision of the case. It is undisputed that

default has been made by the respondents. The plaintiffs are now asking that effect may be given to the forfeiture clause in consequence of this

default. A good deal was said on behalf of the respondents to the effect that there was a delay in getting the decree from the court and within the

limited time left to them they could net possibly have made the payments in time. If they were pressed for time, the obvious course for them was to

resort to the court that passed the decree and get an extension of time. That they have not done. In the circumstances, the only conclusion we can

arrive at is that inasmuch as the defendants had defaulted in making the payments, Clause 4 of the decree should be given effect to. Therefore, we

would set aside the orders of the lower courts and ask the first court to take up the applications on file and dispose of them according to law. The

respondents will pay the appellants'' costs.

We fix the fee at Rs. 15 in each case. It is not denied that in three of the appeals (Appeals Nos. 132, 135 and 136) payments were made

before the 20th of February, 1920; they are therefore dismissed.