AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.—The question in this appeal is clearly covered by the decision in Trimbak v. Ramchandra ILR (1899) 23 Bom. 723 : 1 Bom. L.R. 215 where it was held that payment of sale proceeds into Court is not sufficient to constitute them money received by the decree holder. That decision was u/s 310A of the CPC of 1882. The same words are used in Order XXI, Rule 89, of the present Code. As long as the Legislature has decided that only money received by the decree-holder can be taken into account, then it is not for the Court to say that money paid into Court, and not put into the pocket of the decree-holder, is money received by him. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.