M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.
1. Revision petitioner is the . respondent in O.P. 20 of 1987. The First Additional Munsiff, Trichur permitted the respondents herein (petitioners in the O.P.) to deposit the amount of Rs.2,000/- as stipulated in Ext. A-2 will in the Court and allowed the revision petitioner (respondent in the O.P.) to withdraw the amount.
2. The contention of the revision petitioner is that no provision in the Indian. Succession Act enables a party to approach the civil- court to make deposit of any amount meant for a legatee under a Will and the Court below was not justified in allowing the respondents to make the deposit before the Court. The case of the respondents is that Lakshmikutty Amma, sister of their father executed a Will and registered it before the Trichur Sub-Registry Office, that as per the Will the property belonging to Lakshmikutty Amma in Sy. No. 122/1 in Viyyar village was given to them, their brother Ravi Chandran and sister Bhagyalakshmi and that an amount of Rs. 2,000 / - was directed to be given to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was permitted to reside in the house in the property till his death. Though genuineness of the Will was disputed by the revision petitioner, the Court below negatived the said contention and upheld the validity of the Will.
3. Contention of the revision petitioner is that under Section 151 of the C.P.C. or under Section 349 of the Indian Succession Act the Court has no power to allow the respondents to deposit the amount mentioned in the Will and to direct him to receive the same.
4. Section 349 provides that the legatee of a specific legacy is entitled to the clear produce thereof, if any, from the testator's death. As Ext. A-2 Will has clearly provided that Rs. 2.000/- shall be paid to the revision petitioner and as that amount was offered to him and as he refused the same, the only course open to the respondents is to have approached the Court seeking permission to pay the amount to the legatee. Though the Indian Succession Act does not make any specific provision for regarding the mode of payment of the amount under a Will to the legatee, Court's power to allow a person to deposit the amount in the Court under Section 151, C.P.C. cannot be denied. As the revision petitioner is a legatee entitled to Rs.2,000/- and the respondents were duty bound to pay the said amount to him, they could comply with the directions in the Will by offering it to the legatee and in case of refusal, by approaching the civil Court with the prayer to allow them to deposit the amount with notice to the legatee. Case of the respondents is that they offered the amount to the revision petitioner and he did not accept it. In such a situation, it is not possible to hold that the civil Court is helpless. It is always open to the Court to do what is fair and equitable. As the respondents approached the Court to peform their obligation under the Will, the Court could not have refused them permission to deposit the amount on the ground that there is no express provision in the Code or the Rules to allow it ignoring its power under Section 151, C.P.C. to do what is fair and equitable. It is trite law that Section 151 does not empower the Court to do anything in contravention of any specific provisions of the Code or Rules. But so long as there is no express provision in the Code or Rules interdicting a particular thing Section 151 can be invoked by a party. Section 151 can be invoked by a party where the proposed action by the Court does not infringe any of the provisions in the Code or Rules or provisions in any statute. As Section 151 makes the statutory recognition of the inherent power of the Court to do things ex debito justitiae, the Court can exercise it to meet the ends of justice so long as it does not transgress any specific provision in the Code or Rules or provision under any statute. In circumstances like the present one, it is not proper to set limitations on Court's inherent powers to grant relief,
5. The trial Court has rightly held that as the revision petitioner has not accepted the offer of Rs. 2,000/- respondents can be permitted to deposit the same in the Court. There is no merit in the C.R.P. C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.