LexC.F. ANGADI versus Y. S. HIRANNAYYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D F C. F. ANGADI v. Y. S. HIRANNAYYA November 23, 1971 [C. A. VAIDJALINGAM AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.) 515 Co1npromise decree-Party to decree given time to do an act within a specified period or by a sptcifid day-Party failing to do it on tlle ground of impossibility of performance on the la.>t day specified-Principles to be applied-Compromise decree, construction of according to law- Does not amount to varying of decree-Decree though in the nature of conJrgct, different consideration apply when embodied in Judge's order. Under a compromise decree the respondent plaintiff agreed to deposit in court the sale amount by January I, 1960. December 31, 1959 am> January 1 1960 were holidays. The respondent made the de;ro•it on Jwuary 2: 1960 and sought to enforce his right under the decree com- pcllin1 the appellant defendant to e_xecutc the co!'veyance .. 'f?e appellant filed execution for cost on the basL~ that the suit stood d1sm1ss_ed as per the provision in the compromise decree on the failure of the respondent to deposit the amount by January I , 1960. The Court held that the res- pondent had made the deposit in substantial compliance with tho decree. •ppeals against this order were :tlso dismissed. In appeals. to. this Court it was contended (1) where a party had to perform an act w1thm a certain p.eriod of by a certain date the law would not talre notice of the circum- stance that the act became incapable of performance by reason of circum- stances beyond hi• control on the last day of the period; (ii) the executing court bad no riiiht to alter or modify the terms of the decree and hold that the deposit made on January 2, 1960 had to be deemed to he a deposit made on January I, 1960 and (iii) a compromise decree was a contract notwithstanding the fact that an order of court was superadded to it and a provision in a contract that an act had to be done within a certain period or by a particular day by a party wa-; absolute dismis&ing the appeal. HELD : (i) The respondent had the right or the liberty to deposit the amount in court till and including January 1, 1960. That being so, the fact that be did not choose to make the deposit earlier would not affect hi& right or liberty to <foposit the amount in court on January I, 1960. [518 F-GJ Halsbury vol. 37 3rd Edn. p. 96; Fc.'teh Khan v. Chlrniiu & Ors .• A .l.R. 1931 Lab. 386, referred to. It is a generally reco&nised principle of law that parties who are pre- vw.ted from doing a thini in court on particular day, not by an act of their own, but by the court itself, are entitled to do ·it at the first sub•e- G quent opportunity. [520 .G] H Halsbury Vol. 37, 3rd Ed. p. 97, para 172, Muhammad Jan v. Shiam T.al; I.LR. XLVJ All. 328 (1924); Shoo.,hee BushGn Rudro v. Gohind Chander Ray, I.LR. Cal. Vol. XVIII (1891) 231. Samba.<iva Chari v. Ramasami Red.ii. !.L.R. 22 Mad. (1899) 179 and Mayor v. Harding, !1867] 2 Q.B. 410, 'referred to. . The present case is concerned with a decree which specificailv pro- vided that the respondent should deposit the amount in court. He had, therefore, no option to pay the same to the appellant [520 C-D] Kuni Bihari v. Bindeshri Prasad, I.L.R. vol. 51, 1929. All. 527, Roshan Lal v. Ganpat Lal. A.l.R. 1938 AIL, Indal v. Chaudhary 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 2 S.C.R. Ram Nidlt, A.1.R. 33 (1946] Ouclh. 156 and Ram Kinkar Singh v. ~mt. Kamal Basini Devi, A.LR. 1938 Pat.. 451, distinguished. l'hatlapali Suryaprakasa Rao v. Poliserti VenkG.taratnam, A.I.R. I 938 Mad. 523, referred to. (ii) The executing court has the right to construe the decre< in the light of the applicable provisions of law. If, in this case, on such a construction, the court found that the deposit made by the respondent on January 2, 1960, was accordigg to law a deposit in compliance with the terms of the decree, then, the executing court was not varying the terms of th~ l.!·~crcc but r.:xcC'uting the decree as it stood. [.522 E] (iii) Although a contract is not the less a contract because it is em· hodied in a Judge's order; it is something more than a contract. Different considerations would apply when a contract is embodied in a Judge's ••rdcr [523 CJ We111worth v. Bullen, E.LR. 141 769, Charles H"bert Kinclz v. lldward Keitlz Walcott, A.I.R. 1929 Journal & P.C. 289. Govind ~Vaman v. f\,f11rlidh:1r Shrinivas, A.LR, 1953 Born. 412 and Morris v. /J<;rret, E:L.R. 141, 768, referr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.