- (1.) Whether a judgment debtor has any option or right to make the payment of the decretal amount in the manner he likes unilaterally Whether the mere acceptance of such amount by the creditor can be held to be agreeing to the conditions put by the judgment debtor while satisfying the decree Whether a debtor can unilaterally insist upon the payment of the decretal amount in liquidation of the principal amount in the first instance notwithstanding his liability to pay the interest and costs are the questions required to be adjudicated in this appeal.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that in a suit filed by the appellant herein a decree was passed on the basis of the mortgage deed executed by the respondents holding them liable to pay to the appellant-plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,25,451.07 together with Court costs and current and future interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs. 2,31,138.52 from the date of the suit till the date of the payment. The decretal amount was, however, to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 20,000/- commencing from 1-9-1983 after making the deduction of Rs. 20,000/- stated to have been paid in the Court. In case of default in the payment of two instalments, the plaintiff-appellant was held entitled to bring the suit schedule property for sale and to realise the entire balance due. In the event of the sale proceeds realised from the sale of the mortgaged property being insufficient to satisfy the decree, the appellant was further held entitled to recover the balance amount personally from defendants Nos. 1 to 6 jointly and severally. Finding that the defendants-judgment debtors had not paid the full amount, the appellant filed an execution petition praying to recover the amount by attachment and sale of the scheduled immovable property as also for the arrest of the judgment debtors. The executing Court vide order dated 27-2-1993 overruled various objections of the judgment debtors and held the decree holder entitled to take steps for the recovery of the balance decretal amount. The plea of the judgment debtors that the full payments towards the decretal amount had been made was not accepted by the executing Court. The assertion of the judgment debtors that the payments made by them were in liquidation of the principal amount and not towards costs and interest were negatived. It was found on facts that the decree holder had intimated the judgment debtor that the amount paid by them had not been appropriated towards the principal amount. Not satisfied with the order of the executing Court, the judgment debtors filed revision petition in the High Court which was accepted and the order of the trial Court was set aside vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.
(3.) After referring to various judgments of different High Courts and of this Court, the single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka came to the conclusion that as the appellant herein did not reply to the letters accompanying the instalments which was sent by the judgment debtors specifically mentioning that the amount be appropriated against the head of principal, it was to be presumed that there was implied acceptance of the amount towards the principal amount, on the part of the appellant-decree holder. In this context the Court held:- "Under these circumstances, if the respondents desired to disregard that instruction, then they ought to have communicated their refusal to the petitioners. It may be that the respondents decided to appropriate the amount in a manner contrary to the instructions from the petitioners which obviously they did.";