V E TRESSLER Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's execution second appeal. One Mr. E. C. Ray sold a specified half share in house No. 343 to the appellant who it appears was occupying the same earlier. By a separate agreement entered into on the same date, the appellant agreed to reconvey the property to the vendor after five years. On 19-4-1966, the right of reconveyance was transferred to Jagdish Prasad Agrawal the respondent, in the instant appeal. Jagdish Prasad Agrawal filed a suit No. 770 of 1966 against the appellant for specific performance of the agreement of reconveyance and for proprietary possession over the half share. The suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise. Under the compromise decree, the appellant bound himself to execute a sale deed of the property in dispute as envisaged by reconveyance agreement. He further agreed to deliver possession of the property after a specified time. Execution was sought of the decree by dispossession of the appellant, as he had failed to deliver possession as agreed.

(2.) THE appellant filed objections under Section 47, C.P.C. The objections were:

(3.) THE learned counsel then urged that the decree was beyond the scope of the suit. The suit prayed for specific performance of the agreement as also for the possession of the property. The agreement to deliver possession was accordingly not beyond the scope of the suit. Further a compromise decree does not become void if it is not exactly in accordance with the reliefs sought in the suit. The validity of the decree thus cannot be questioned on that ground in these proceedings (See Shyam Lal v. M. Shyam Lal, (AIR 1933 All 649) (FB).