IMMADI MAHALAKSHMAMMA Vs. IMMADI VENKATACHALAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is brought by the first respondent (first defendant) against the judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu J. under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, leave to appeal having been granted by him.

(2.) The short question that falls to be determined in this appeal is whether it is open to the executing court to go behind the terms of the compromise decree, and refuse specific performance on the ground that the performance of the contract would involve hardship within the meaning of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, or on other equitable grounds.

(3.) Under the terms of the compromise decree, which was entered into on 7-81935 in O. S. No. 554 of 1932 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenali, the appellant and the second respondent agreed to convey to the first respondent the property situated in Kakarlamudi and Tenali villages and the plaint schedule property for Rs. 400 and Rs. 3000 respectively, and that proper documents would be executed within one month after the date of the compromise. The decree further provided that tooth the parties should be at liberty to have the right and interest, which they possessed, enforced in execution of the decree without reference to a separate suit. The first respondent herein filed in 1938 and 1941 two formal execution applications to keep alive the decree. In 1944 he filed E. P. No. 238 of 1944 under Order 21, Rule 34 of the Civil P. C., praying that the appellant and the second respondent should be directed to execute sale deeds in his favour as per the terms of the compromise decree.