Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)Hirabhai Dahyabhai vs Maneklal Ranchhod on 21 January, 1925
4. But it happens that in this case the present appellants are not at all in a strong position for urging that they got no benefit from Defendant l's deposit of Rs. 3,500. It is urged for them that they got no benefit from that because for some reason they found it inconvenient to give security and draw that money. Can we properly say that they got no benefit from the money simply because they did not choose, or were even unable, to give security? We know that they did not give it; but the moment they chose to give security or were able to give that security they could take the money out of Court. And, as part of the decree amount due to them was in Court ready for them to put their hands upon it the amount they succeeded in the appeal, if they did succeed in it, that was clearly a benefit to them, as was recognised in Hirabhai Dahyabhai v. Maneklal Ranchhod (1925) 87 I.C. 713. In my opinion, if we had to decide this case on the basis whether the appellants had got any benefit by the deposit of the Rs. 3,500, I think we should have to find that they had derived at least some benefit from that deposit. But in my opinion that is not the proper test. The proper test is whether Defendant 1 has been injured or deprived of his legal right in respect of that Rs. 3,500 which he had to deposit in consequence of the wrong decree obtained against him by the appellants. In my opinion he was injured by 1 having to make that deposit, and he cannot be properly compensated for that injury by the mere return of the Rs. 3,500. If he is to be compensated, if he is to get restitution within the meaning of Section 144 of the Code, he is entitled to get interest also.
1