MUDRAGADA SUBBARAO Vs. MUDRAGADA VENKATANARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important point which has to be considered in this appeal is whether the compromise decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada in O. S. No. 37 of 1912 on 28-11-1918 is executable or not, because the appln out of which the present appeal arises is for execution of that decree & for reliefs which have been claimed in para 13 of the execution petn. The reliefs claimed are that resp 1 in the lower Ct be directed to hand over the account paper, etc., relating to the Veeravallipalem Choultry trust & place the petnr in possession of the properties for managing it for three years continuously & that the resps 1 to 3 be directed to file into Ct from the year Promoduta onwards the accounts till the date of petn. There were incidental reliefs also prayed for.

(2.) Various objections were raised but they were all overruled by the learned Judge who allowed the petn as prayed for with some reliefs granted in favour of the petnr. As we are not deciding the correctness or otherwise of the findings of the learned Judge on the point for consideration which arose before him except with regard to the executability of the decree, we do not wish to say anything regarding the' justifiability of the findings of the learned Judge on the facts & evidence placed before him.

(3.) The operative portion of the decree with which we are concerned is as follows: "In the rajinama filed by the parties on 7-2-1913 the Ct, was invited to frame a scheme as regards the management of the Veeravallipalem choultry by pltfs & defts 1 to 5. No detailed scheme is necessary as the rajinama says that it should be managed as a private choultry of the family. It is however necessary to give some simple directions to avoid disputes, (a) The properties allotted under the said rajinama & also the income of the choultry lands for the current year & the amount now ascertained & allotted to the choultry for the 6 pies share of the profits of the Kotipalli lan-kas, do vest in the choultry as the property of the trust. The amount now allotted will form a corpus fund which, on realisation, shall be invested in proper securities, (b) The choultry & its properties & income should be managed by rotation of a Telugu year, each beginning with deft 1 who is the eldest member & afterwards pltf 1 & subsequently deft 4 & finally deft 5 (defts 4 & 5 would have attained majority prior to their turn). Deft 1 will also manage for, the rest of the current Telugu year, (c) The trustee should in his turn keep proper accounts of the receipts & disbursements, file a copy of the account into Ct once in 6 months for the inspection of the other parties & hand over the accounts with the cash on hand at the end of his turn to the succeeding trustee. In our opinion the utmost that could be said in favour of the executable nature of the decree is that the last sentence which mentions that "the trustee should hand over the accounts with the cash on hand at the end of his turn to the succeeding trustee" is a provision which might possibly be said to make this decree executable; that is, as soon as the one year term mentioned in the decree for one of the parties to manage the properties expires, he should hand over the properties with the accounts to the succeeding trustee. It is contended for the petnr resp that this portion of the decree is executable & as such the appln in the lower Ct is maintainable. In our opinion it is difficult to hold that this sentence should toe construed as an executable decree passed with a direction by the Ct that the decree-holder may execute it against a judgment- debtor. We are unable to say that there is any decree-holder as such or that there is any judgment-debtor. It may be that during one year the person entitled to keep possession of the management may be a judgment-debtor if the construction put upon it by the learned counsel for the petnr-resp can be accepted so that the two positions interchange during various years & we feel that it is unsafe to construe this portion of the decree as an executable one. A large body of case law of this Ct has laid down that a provision in a scheme decree is inexecutable, whether the provision is directory or mandatory & the preponderance of judicial opinion in the Madras H. C. is against the view that such provisions are executable. See 'Vaithilinga Mudaliar v. Thyagarajasami Devastanam, Tiruvarur', 59 Mad 751: (AIR (23) 1936 Mad 581); 'Krishnamurthi v. Seetha-ramanujacharyulu', 45 MLW 230: (AIR (24) 1937 Mad 326); 'Ramanathan Chettiar v. Madura Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Deva-stanam', 1937-2 M L J 887 : (AIR (25) 1938 Mad "256) & 'Achutarama Rao v. Bapanayya', 1943-1 M L J 504: (AIR (29) 1942 Mad 748). As the trend of decisions of this Ct is very much in favour of the view that provisions in a scheme (decree cannot be executed, though there were a few decisions to the contrary earlier, we do not feel that despite the view taken by the other H. Cs. we should go against the trend of authority of this Ct. We, therefore, are of opinion chat the decree as such cannot be executed.