PNARASIMHA IYENGAR Vs. LAKKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a judgment-debtor's second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts below. The appellant-judgment-debtor pleaded that it was agreed between him and the decree-holder that a sum of Rs. 605/- would be given deduction to by the decree-holder. In other words, he pleaded a pre-decretal term. There was a compromise between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and as a result of that compromise, the decree was passed for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- against the judgment-debtor-appellant. Most of the decretal amount was paid by the judgment-debtor, leaving a balance of Rs. 893-8-0. The decred-holder filed an execution for the recovery of the said amount. The judgment-debtor filed an objection pleading the pre-decretal adjustment of Rs. 605/- as stated supra. The question that had to be decided by the two lower courts was, whether such pre-decretal arrangement could be pleaded in execution of the decree. They came to the conclusion that the appellant-judgment-debtor cannot so plead. In the result, while dismissing the objections filed by the judgment-debtor, they held that the decree-holder can execute the decree as prayed for by him. Aggrieved by said judgments and decrees, the judgment-debtor has filed this second appeal.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant-judgment-debtor that the objections filed by him had not attacked the decree; but they amount to the manner of enforcement of the decree and hence, they can be pleaded in execution. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states:

(3.) There is no dispute regarding the facts of this case, for, they are quite simple. The respondent-decree-holder comes forward with the execution of a decree in his favour, after deducting the amount paid by the judgment-debtor. His execution is confined to the recovery of a sum of Rs. 893-8-0. The judgment-debtor-appellant contends that in the execution of the decree, the decree-holder should give a deduction to a sum of Rs. 605/- according to the pre-decretal arrangement between the parties. The question arises -- Can such an agreement be pleaded in execution of a decree? The cases of various High Courts have been placed before me by both the parties. But the governing principle appears to me. is, as laid down in the case of Butchiah Chetti v. Tayar Rao Naidu, reported in AIR 1931 Mad 399, which is as follows: