(1.) As per the decree in the case, the plaintiff is to recover arrears of rent by sale of the defendants interest in the plaint schedule properties and from the properties of Sankaranarayana Iyer, the deceased father of defendants 1 to 4"; and to pay to defendants 1 to 4 costs proportionate to their success. The defendants having sought execution for the costs awarded to them, the plaintiff raised the objection that such execution cannot be had as the arrears of rent decreed to the plaintiff from the defendants exceeded the costs decreed to the defendants from the plaintiff; and being cross claims under the same decree within the purview of R.19 of O.21 CPC. satisfaction for the costs shall be entered upon the decree and execution will lie only by the plaintiff for the excess of the arrears of rent over the costs. The court below repelled this defence and allowed execution to proceed. Hence this appeal.
(2.) The decree allows the amount due from the defendants 1 to 4 to be recovered from the defendants 1 to 4 by a proceeding against their properties. As held in Nagar Damodar Shanbhogue v. Gange ( AIR 1938 Mad. 638 ) a decree against ones properties is a decree against oneself for purposes of O.21 R.19. It follows therefore that the mutual claims under the decree are really cross claims under the same decree and come exactly within the purview of R.19. The satisfaction mentioned in clause (b) of R.19 is to be entered as on the date of the decree itself. The fact that by later enactments the decree relating to arrears of rent became inexecutable, wholly or in part, is of no relevance to the carrying out of the provisions of O.21 R.19, CPC. Satisfaction will therefore be entered upon the decree regarding costs in favour of the defendants 1 to 4, leaving the plaintiff to execute the decree for rent for so much only as remains after deducting the costs therefrom.
(3.) The execution petition filed by defendants 1 to 4 is dismissed as incompetent and the appeal allowed with costs.