RAMESH CHAND DAGA versus RAMESHWARI BAI

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 16-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH CHAND DAGA 
A 
v. 
RAMESHW ARI BAI· 
MARCH 16, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 2(2)-Decree-High Court 
directing husband to return the ornaments to the wife and on failure, to pt:zy 
price of ornaments and interest thereon-No time frame fixed for return of the C 
ornaments-Husband returned the ornaments within reasonable time-Wife 
claiming interest on the price of ornaments-Maintainability of claim-Held 
: Wife cannot claim interest on the price of ornaments, since after return of 
ornaments the question of paying price and interest thereon did not arise. 
Respondent-wife had approached Family Court for judicial D 
separation, maintenance and return of ornaments, which directed 
appellant-husband to return the ornaments within one month and on 
failure, to pay to the respondent Rs. 3.25 facs, but no decree of interest 
on the said sum was passed. Appellant and respondent aggrieved by the 
order came up before High Court. The High Court held that in case 
ornaments are not returned, respondent would be entitled to interest @ E 
9% p.a. from the date of decree. However, no time frame for return of 
ornaments was specified. 
Respondent initiated execution proceedings. Appellant wrote letter 
dated 15.3.2000 to respondent to personally collect the ornaments within F 
15 days after receipt of the letter. Respondent raised certain objections. 
Ultimately, ornaments were delivered on 2.7.2003. Family Court also 
directed payment of interest on Rs. 3.25 lacs from the date of decree. 
Appellant filed revision before High Court, which held that liability to pay 
interest had already commenced since the date of decree. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the Executing 
Court, and subsequently the High Court, committed a serious error of law 
in directing payment of interest and that in view of the fact that no time 
was fixed for return of the ornaments, and the appellant having offered 
the same to -the respondent within a reasonable time, no interest on the 
927 
H 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 2 S.C.R. 
A said sum of Rs. 3.25 lacs was payable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : l. The Family Court in its original decree did not grant any 
interest on the said sum of Rs. 3.25 lacs. An alternative decree was only 
B passed to the effect that the respondent would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 
3.25 lacs in the event, the ornaments are not returned to the respondent 
by the appellant. [934-E-F] 
2.1. A decree in the nature of mandatory injunction directing a party 
to the suit to deliver certain movable property in favour of the appellant 
C cannot be equated with a decree for payment of a specified sum. The 
question of the appellant's paying the price of the ornaments valued at 
Rs. 3.25 lacs together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the decree 
of the Family Court dated 9.10.1995 could have arisen only if the appellant 
had not returned the same to the respondent within a reasonable time. 
D 
(934-F-G, H; 935-A] 
2.2. The Family Court directed the appellant to re!tirn the ornaments 
within one month from the date of the -decree, and only on his failure to 
do so he was made liable to pay the value thereof. The High Court while 
upholding that part of the decree, did not fix any time. In absence of any 
direction having been issued by the High Court upon the appellant to 
E return the ornaments within the time specified, the ornaments could be 
returned by him to the respondent within a reasonable time. The order 
of the High Court, therefore, was a conditional one. The Appellant offered 
delivery of the ornaments to the respondent by his letter dated 15.3.2000. 
The High Court wro!1gly proceeded to hold that the appellant could not 
p have avoided his liability merely by giving the said notice of 15 days on 
15.3.2000. [935-B-D, E] 
3. The High Court failed to notice that the direction upon the 
Appellant to pay interest was subject to the condition that if he did not 
return the ornaments, the direction to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 
G 3.25 lacs would operate, and it was thus not an unconditional decree. If 
the appellant had fulfilled the conditions specified in the judgment, the 
question of his incurring the liability to pay the price of the ornaments 
specified by High Court did not arise. Thµs direction upon appellant to 
i;eturn the ornaments is not concomitant with the order to pay the price . 
thereof. The second direct

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.