ANNAPOORNI AMMAL Vs. APPU ALIAS V V VENKATESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS 2 to 4 in O.S.No.163 of 1979, on the file of Sub Court, Thanjavur, are the revision petitioners.

(2.) PREDECESSOR of the petitioners, late V.V.Swami -nathan filed the above suit for partition. The matter was settled and a compromise was entered into between the parties. As per paragraph 3 of the compromise, it was agreed that since the plaintiffs were allotted properties of a greater value, they should pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 to the defendant. The said amount was agreed to be paid in instalments of Rs.1,000 per mensem. The amount so paid will also carry interest at 6% per annum. The compromise was recorded and thereafter the original plaintiff died. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the compromise, the amounts were paid to the respondent. From the accounting year 1979 -80 to 1985 -1986, every month, amount was paid and the same is reflected in the accounts which are maintained by them. It is said that the receipt of the amount is also admitted by defendant in his income -tax returns. It is their case that after payment of instalments and also the interest the petitioners were to pay by the end of Financial year 1985 -86, only a sum of Rs.61,585 -65. In the meanwhile, the respondent also filed an Execution Petition without giving any reduction to the amount alleged to have been received. The petitioners/therefore, filed the present execution petition without giving any reduction to the amount alleged to have been received. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present execution application under Sec.47, C.R.C. to enter satisfaction of the decree, and for the said purpose they sought the assistance of court for an enquiry. They also wanted to issue summons to the Income -tax Department to produce the accounts, and also wanted the defendant to produce the accounts wherein the defendant has admitted receipt of the amount. The said execution application was not numbered by the Court below, and after hearing the objection of the respondent, the same was dismissed. The said order is now under challenge.

(3.) CHALLENGING the legality of that Order, learned Counsel for revision petitioners relied on O.21, Rule 2, Sub -rule (2), (a) and (b), C.P.C. to contend that if any payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence, satisfaction of the decree could be entered under O.21, Rule 2, C.P.C. It is his case that the defendant has already admitted receipt of the amounts in his accounts and also in his returns to the Income -tax Department. Therefore, they are entitled to call for those documents.