VAJJIRALA RAMIREDDI Vs. DONTIREDDY KAMALAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1955-3-14
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 14,1955

VAJJIRALA RAMIREDDI Appellant
VERSUS
DONTIREDDY KAMALAMMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EVANS V. REES [REFERRED TO]
FREEMAN V. TRANAK [REFERRED TO]
MAHOMED AKBAR ZAMAN KHAN V. SUKHDEO PANDE [REFERRED TO]
GAJADHAR DAS V. RAM SUMIRAN DUBE [REFERRED TO]
SUBBAI GOUNDAN V. PALANI GOUNDAN [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIA AYYAR V. NARAYANASWAMI VANDAYAR [REFERRED TO]
KOILPILLAI SAMBAN V. SAPPANIMUTHU SAMBAN [REFERRED TO]
GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI V. KUNJITHAPATHAM PILIAI [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANASWAMI NAYAK V. RAMASWAMI NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAVANTULAYYA V. VENKADHORA [REFERRED TO]
SUBBARAJU V. KONETI RAJU [REFERRED TO]
M. SUBBARAYUDU V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIA AYYAR V. RAMASWAMI AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
SHAM DAS V. UMER DIN [REFERRED TO]
BUTI RAM V. SARDAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHUNCHU NARAYANA VS. KARRAPATI KESAPPA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The plaintiff is the appellant. Defendants 2 and 3 filed O P. No. 21 of 1946 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bapatla, under section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act on 24th August, 1946. They were, however, unable to deposit the mortgage amount in the treasury till 27th August, 1946, on account of the delay in Issuing the challan by the Court. As evidenced by the document, the 1st defendant applied for a challan even on 24th August, 1946, but it was ordered by the Court only on 26th August, 1946, and delivered to the clerk of the defendants' advocate at about 4 P.M. with the result that the amount could be deposited only on 27th August, 1946. The simple question that arises for consideration in the Second Appeal is, whether the deposit on 27th August, 1946, would relate back to the date of filing the Original Peti ion and the application for the issue of a challan. According to the appellant the deposit under section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act was not a proper one, as the interest of Rs. 2-8-9 which accrued between 24th August, 1946 and 27th August, 1946 was not paid into the treasury. The advocate for the respondent (Defendants) contended that his client rightly calculated the interest due up to 24th August, 1946, when they filed the application under section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act and requested the Court to issue a challan for depositing the amount into the treasury. There is no doubt that there is no mistake in the calculation of the amount due as on 24th August, 1946. The only question, therefore is, whether the respondents were bound to pay the interest which accrued between 24th and 27th in order to make the deposit a valid one. The Subordinate Judge held that the deposit would relate back to the date of the application and that it was therefore correct. I agree with his view.
(2.)One of the well-known maxims of law is actus curiae (or legis) nemi nem gravabit, i.e., an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. This maxim " is founded upon justice and good sense ; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law "-Per Cresswell, J., in Freeman v. Tranak. (1852) 12 C.B. 406 at page 415 : 138 E.R. 964. As in the instant case the defendants did what they could, they ought not to be prejudiced by the act of the Couit, viz., the delay in issuing the challan. The learned advocate for the respondents also referred me to the discussion in paragraph 126 of Black on "Judgments", about the meaning of the phrase nunc pro tune which is as follows :
"The phrase 'nunc pro tune', 'now for then , is used to indicate that something which was omitted to be done at "the proper time is afterwards performed with a retroactive effect; that is, it is to have the same force and virtue and be attended by the same consequences as if it had been regularly done. In relation to judicial proceedings, the performance of acts nunc pro tune may take place in the various stages of the progress of a suit, and instances are not uncommon of affidavits or other papers filed in this manner."

(3.)The rule of nunc pro tune is really based on the maxim actus curiae nemi nem gravabit. The contention of the learned advocate for the respondent was that the deposit made on 27th should be treated in law as having been made on the 24th in the circumstance aforesaid. Applying the maxim aforesaid I agree with his contention.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.