The common question arising in these Civil Revision Petitions. is whether. in the facts and circumstances of the case the decree holders are entitled to appropriate the amount deposited by the judgment debtors towards the decree debt .during the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court. first towards the interest following the dictum in Meghraj v. Bayabai (AIR 1970 SC 161 [LQ/SC/1969/209] ) and Georgekutly v. Thomas (.1989 KLT 641). The relevant facts arc as follows:

2. Land belonging to 1st respondent in the civil revision petitions was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act on behalf of the revision petitioners. Against the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. the land owners approached the Sub Court. Ernakulam for enhancement of compensation. The Sub Court granted enhancement of compensation solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at 4%. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sub Court. the revision petitioners filed appeals before the High Court. By a common judgment dated 28-7-1986 reported in 1986 KLT 1013. the appeals were dismissed by this court declaring at the same lime that the land owners were entitled to enhanced rate of interest and solatium as provided by the amended Land Acquisition Act. The revision petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. By order dated 27-7-1987. the Supreme Court granted stay of the judgment of this court in the following manner: "DOTH ORDER that pending the hearing and final disposal by this. court of the aforesaid applications for slay after notice. the collection of the enhanced compensation. solatium and interest payable by the petitioner herein pursuant to the judgment and Order dated the 28h July. 1986. of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in L. A.A.Nos. referred to above be and is hereby stayed:" The above order was later clarified on 7-12-1987 as follows: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Our order does not grant any stay of claims of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as enhanced by the Reference court under S.20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. What has been actually stayed is disbursement of the compensation to the extent it has been escalated by referring to the Amending Act. 1984 by the High Court. The entire compensation not covered by our present clarification shall be paid within six weeks without demanding any security. CMP is disposed of." Pursuant to the above order the entire compensation as grained by the Sub Court. Ernakulam was deposited by the judgment debtor within the stipulated time. Thereafter following the judgment in Union of India v. Rag hubir Singh (1989 (2) SCC 754 [LQ/SC/1989/332] ) the appeals filed by the revision petitioner were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12-9-89. Later the order was modified to the effect that interest payable under S.23(1)(A) was not admissible as the award of the Collector was prior to the relevant dates referred to in S.30(t) of the Amending act. 68 of 1984. This order was passed on 20-1-1989.

3. The decree holders had filed execution petitions in 1990 wherein they appropriated the amount deposited by the judgment debtor in 1989 first towards the interest and on this basis the balance due was calculated and shown along with cost. No objection was filed by the judgment debtor. On the other hand the judgment debtor made deposits in all cases by March. 1991. Decree holders filed applications under R.359 of Civil Rules of Practice for issuing cheque for the amount deposited by the judgment debtor towards decree debt. These applications were resisted by judgment debtor contending that the amount deposited in March. 1991 was in excess of what was really done towards the balance decree debt and requested for refund of the excess amount. A detailed statement was filed by the judgment debtor wherein they claimed that the amount deposited by them pursuant to the order dated7-12-1987 cannot be appropriated towards the interest first. as was proposed in the execution petition. The executing court rejected the contention and allowed the applications filed by the decree holders following AIR 1970 SC 161 and 1980 KLT 641.

4. The normal Rule. Supreme Court held in Meghrajs case is that the amounts deposited in court should first be applied towards satisfaction of the interest and costs and thereafter towards the principal. Same is the view taken by this court in 1980 KLT 641. An attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to contend that the above dictum is no longer good law in the light of the amendment to R. I of 0.21 of C.P.C. In support of his contention. the learned counsel relied on a decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Punjab National Bank v. P1-cm Sagar (AIR 1988 H.P. 33) which held that sub-rule (4) and (5) of R. I of O.XXI after the Amendment Act. 1976 postulate cessation of interest on any payment made for the satisfaction of the decretal amount and in view of these new provision. it is no longer open to the decree holder to appropriate payments received by him to that part of the decretal amount which does not bear an interest. With great respect to the learned judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. I am constrained to disagree with the above view. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent. the principle of cessation of accrual of interest once amount is deposited towards decree debt was already there in the provisions contained in

R.3 of 0.24 of C.P.C. That the discretion granted to the creditor under S.60 of the Indian Contract Act to apply the payment made by the debtor without indicating to which debt the payment is to be applied is not taken away by the amendment to R. I of O.XXI is evident from the provisions contained in O.XXI. R. I (3)(c) which reads as follows:

"(3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through bank under Cl.(a) or Cl.(b) of sub-rule (1). the money order or payment through bank. as the case maybe. shall accurately state the following particulars. namely:

(c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted that is to say. whether it is towards the principal. interest or costs;"

Therefore I am of the view that irrespective of the amendment to 0.21 R. I. the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Meghrajs case that when the judgment debtor has not specified as to how the amount deposited has to be appropriated it is open to the decree holder to adjust the payment first towards the interest. still holds good.

5. Then the question is whether the decree holders in the present case can appropriate the amount deposited by the judgment debtor pursuant to order dated 7-12-1987 first towards the interest. Admittedly by order dated 27-7-1987. the Supreme Court had stayed the execution of the entire decree as enhanced by the High Court and by order dated 7-12-1987. the Supreme Court directed the judgment debtor to deposit the entire amount awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer and as enhanced by the reference court namely the Sub Court. Ernakulam within six weeks. Grant of solatium and interest at the enhanced rate as per the provisions of the amended Act by the High Court was stayed.

6. Therefore when deposit was made by the judgment debtor pursuant to the order dated 7-12-87 within the time granted therein. it was in satisfaction of both principal and interest along with cost as granted by the reference court. When deposit is made pursuant to specific direction by the court. it is not necessary for the judgment debtor to specify that the amount should be appropriated in a particular manner. It is also not open to the decree holder to appropriate the amount according to his discretion on the basis that the judgment debtor has not specified the mode of appropriation. Even when the judgment debtor has not specifically mentioned as to whether the amount deposited can be appropriated towards principal first. such an intention can be discernible from the facts and circumstances of the case. In Central Warehousing Corporation. Berliampur v. M/s. G. Choudhury & Sons (AIR 1989 Ori. 90 [LQ/OriHC/1987/356] ). this aspect has been specifically considered. In the above case though the decretal dues included both principal and interest deposit of the exact amount as that of the principal amount was made by the judgment debtor and without any objection that amount was withdrawn by the decree holder. When later. a contention was taken by the decree holder that the amount deposited should be adjusted towards interest. the contention was rejected holding that when the decree holder has accepted the payments when the circumstances indicated that the payments were for the specific amounts of principal. the decree holder cannot later take a stand that the amount deposited should be allowed first towards the interest. In Improvement Trust. Jind v. Narinder Kumar (AIR 1990 P & H 326). the amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal was deposited by the judgment debtor. Thereafter when the appeal was pending before the High Court. amendments to the Land Acquisition Act came into effect and the decree holder were found entitled to higher rate of interest and solatium. It was held that in the above circumstances. the decree holders could not be allowed to adjust the amount already received by them by way of deposit after the order of the Tribunal towards interest and cost and but has to appropriate the same towards principal amount of compensation. Of course. in this case reference was made to sub-rule (4) of R. I of 0.21 which provided that interest if any shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice to the decree holder about the payment made in Clause (a) or Clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of R. I. When once the principal amount as determined by the Tribunal on reference was deposited. further interest thereon would cease and the decree holders were found entitled only to enhanced rate of interest as ordered by the High Court in view of the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act. The decree holders were not allowed to adjust the amount already received by them towards enhanced interest and cost etc. and then claim principal amount as was contended on behalf of the decree holders. Of course. there is a slight difference in the facts of the present ease as amount of compensation along with solatium interest and cost as granted by the reference court was not deposited by the judgment debtor until the order dated 7-12-87 was passed by the Supreme Court. But in view of the specific direction contained in the order dated 7-12-1987 and in view of the .fad that there was no demur on the part of the decree holders against the above direction it should be taken that the amount deposited by the judgment debtors pursuant to the order dated 7-12-1987 was in satisfaction of the decree amount including compensation. solatium interest and cost as awarded by the reference court. There is no justification for the contention that the decree holder should be allowed to adjust the above amount towards the interest first.

7. The court below has failed to consider the effect of the order dated 7-12-1987 passed by the Supreme Court giving a specific direction to the judgment debtor to deposit the entire decree amount as granted by the reference court. The normal rule enunciated in Meghraj s case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the result it is held that the decree holders in E.P.253/90 in L.A.R. 120/82. E.P.482/90 in L.A.R.114/82 and E.P.480/90 in L.A.R.95/92 are not entitled to appropriate the amounts deposited by the judgment debtor pursuant to the order dated 7-12-87 issued by the Supreme Court first towards the interest.

The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed to the above extent.