Introduction
In the world of commerce and contractual dealings, it is common for a debtor to owe multiple debts to the same creditor. When the debtor makes a lump sum payment, a question arises — which particular debt should this payment be applied to? This situation is legally resolved through the doctrine of Appropriation of Payments, which is governed by Sections 59 to 61 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Appropriation of payment refers to the allocation of a payment made by a debtor towards one of several debts owed to the same creditor. This concept ensures fairness, avoids confusion, and maintains transparency in the settlement of financial obligations.
The doctrine finds its origin in English common law, particularly from the case of Clayton’s Case (1816), which set the rule for how payments are to be appropriated when multiple debts exist.
Meaning of Appropriation of Payment
Appropriation of payment means the application of a payment made by a debtor to one of several debts owed to a creditor. The allocation of this payment depends on the intention of the debtor, the creditor’s discretion, or in certain cases, the law itself.
In simple terms:
When a debtor owes more than one debt and makes a payment, it must be decided which debt the payment should be adjusted against.
For instance, if A owes B ₹10,000 under Debt X and ₹15,000 under Debt Y, and A pays ₹10,000 without specifying which debt the payment relates to, the rules of appropriation will determine its application.
Statutory Provisions: Sections 59 to 61 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 59 – Appropriation as per Debtor’s Intention
“Where a debtor, owing several distinct debts to one person, makes a payment to him, either with express intimation, or under circumstances implying, that the payment is to be applied to the discharge of some particular debt, the payment, if accepted, must be applied accordingly.”
Explanation:
If the debtor specifies which debt a payment should go toward, the creditor is bound to apply it accordingly.
Example:
A owes B ₹5,000 for rent and ₹7,000 for goods purchased. A sends ₹5,000, stating that it is for the rent. B must appropriate it towards the rent.
Case Law:
- Meka Venkatadri Appa Rao v. Raja Parthasarathi Appa Rao (1921) 48 IA 150 – The Privy Council held that if a debtor specifies the debt for which payment is made, the creditor has no discretion to change it.
Section 60 – Appropriation at Creditor’s Discretion
“Where the debtor has omitted to intimate and there are no other circumstances indicating to which debt the payment is to be applied, the creditor may apply it at his discretion to any lawful debt actually due and payable to him from the debtor, whether its recovery is or is not barred by the law of limitation.”
Explanation:
If the debtor doesn’t specify which debt the payment is for, the creditor may apply it at their discretion — even to a time-barred debt, as long as it is legally recoverable.
Example:
A owes B ₹10,000 (barred by limitation) and ₹20,000 (within limitation). A pays ₹10,000 without specifying. B may apply it toward the time-barred debt.
Case Law:
- Sowcar Lodd Govind Doss v. Official Assignee of Madras (1925) ILR 48 Mad 820 – The court upheld that a creditor can apply the payment to any debt, even one barred by limitation, if the debtor provides no direction.
Section 61 – Appropriation by Law (In Absence of Intimation)
“Where neither party makes any appropriation, the payment shall be applied in discharge of the debts in order of time, whether they are or are not barred by the law of limitation. If the debts are of equal standing, the payment shall be applied in discharge of each proportionally.”
Explanation:
If neither debtor nor creditor makes an appropriation, the law itself decides how payment is applied:
- Payment is applied to oldest debt first, in chronological order.
- If debts are equal in time, payment is divided proportionally.
Case Law:
- Devaynes v. Noble (1816), also known as Clayton’s Case, established the rule that payments are presumed to be applied to the oldest debts first in a continuous account.
Modes of Appropriation Summarized
| Situation | Who Decides the Appropriation? | Section | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debtor specifies which debt to apply payment | Debtor | Section 59 | A specifies payment for Debt A |
| Debtor does not specify | Creditor | Section 60 | B applies payment to old debt |
| Neither party specifies | Law (Court applies by default) | Section 61 | Payment applied to oldest debt |
Rules and Principles of Appropriation
- Debtor’s Right Comes First
- The debtor has the first right to decide to which debt a payment will apply.
- Once the creditor accepts, they are bound by the debtor’s direction.
- Creditor’s Discretion
- If the debtor is silent, the creditor may decide how to appropriate the payment.
- This discretion includes applying it to a time-barred debt.
- Legal Appropriation by Default
- If neither specifies, the law automatically appropriates payments in chronological order.
- Appropriation in Running Accounts
- In continuous or current accounts (like banks), the rule in Clayton’s Case applies — first payment discharges the earliest debt.
- Time-Barred Debts
- A creditor can choose to apply a payment to a debt barred by limitation if the debtor has not made any specification (Section 60).
- Equitable Considerations
- The rule is subject to fairness; the creditor cannot apply a payment in bad faith to disadvantage the debtor unjustly.
Illustrations
- Illustration 1:
A owes B ₹1,000 on 1st January, ₹2,000 on 1st February, and ₹3,000 on 1st March. A pays ₹2,000 without specifying the debt.
→ B can appropriate it to the February debt, or any other debt, as per Section 60. - Illustration 2:
A owes B ₹10,000 for goods sold in January and ₹15,000 for goods sold in March. A pays ₹10,000 specifying that it is for the March debt.
→ B must appropriate it to the March debt (Section 59). - Illustration 3:
If A owes B ₹5,000 (January) and ₹5,000 (March), and both debts are due, but neither party specifies, the payment will be divided proportionally between the two debts (Section 61).
Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws
- Clayton’s Case (1816) 1 Mer 572
- Established the “First In, First Out” principle for running accounts — payments discharge the earliest debts first.
- Meka Venkatadri Appa Rao v. Raja Parthasarathi Appa Rao (1921)
- The debtor’s intention governs if clearly expressed; the creditor cannot divert payment elsewhere.
- Sowcar Lodd Govind Doss v. Official Assignee of Madras (1925)
- The creditor can apply payment to a time-barred debt if debtor remains silent.
- Kantilal J. Shah v. Hiralal Nathalal (1968)
- Held that where neither party appropriates, Section 61 applies, and payments must be applied to debts in order of time.
Practical Importance of Appropriation of Payments
- Prevents confusion in multi-debt relationships.
- Protects both debtor and creditor from disputes.
- Ensures transparency and certainty in commercial dealings.
- Allows equitable treatment and fair adjustment of accounts.
- Facilitates efficient business transactions in long-standing debtor–creditor relationships.
Conclusion
The doctrine of appropriation of payments under Sections 59–61 of the Indian Contract Act provides a structured mechanism to resolve payment allocation disputes. It balances the rights of both debtor and creditor — giving the debtor initial priority to decide, followed by creditor discretion, and finally, default appropriation by law.
This concept reinforces commercial fairness, protects contractual rights, and ensures that no debt remains unsettled due to ambiguity in payment application. By codifying this doctrine, the Indian Contract Act aligns with English common law principles, ensuring consistency and justice in financial dealings.
Also Read: Legal Internship Opportunity Global Policy & Investment Governance Experience at OECD, Paris
Also Read: Breach of Contract and Remedies under the Indian Contract Act, 1872