PASALA SURYACHANDRA RAO Vs. TAKURDAS TOPENDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 25 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajahmundry. The suit was filed by Thakurdas Topendas, one of the three executors to recover a sum of money from the defendants. There were three executors in all. The other two executors were added as defendants 9 and 10 to the suit. A joint decree was passed in favour of the three executors, the plaintiff and defendants 9 and 10. The 2nd defendant filed E.A. No. 42 of 1960 under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, pleading an adjustment of the decree evidenced by Exhibit A-1. Exhibit A-1 is letter given by one Ganesh Singh (R.W.1) to the 2nd defendant and it reads as follows :

(2.) .It is argued by Mr. R. V. Ramarao, the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the judgments of the Courts below are erroneous because one of the three decree- holders can give a valid discharge. Here in the present case, according to the learned Counsel, the agent of one of the decree-holders has settled the matter with the plaintiff and this settlement is binding on all the executors. He further pointed out that, under the general law, one of serveral executors is competent to give a valid discharge. I am referred to section 311 of the Indian Succession Act and the illustrations thereto. The said section is as follows :-

(3.) The decision in Hanumanthappa v. Stethayya & Co., I.L.R. (1950) Mad. 285 : (1949) 2 M.L.J, 217 ; A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 790. in my view, supports the contention of the learned counsel. But, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the receipt, Exhibit A-l shows that Ganesh Singh agreed to get the concerned letter of acceptance from Stth Thakurdas Topendas and there is nothing in this case to show that the said Seth Thakurdas Topendas agreed to this arrangement. But, it does not appear to have been disputed in the Courts below that Seth Thakurdas Topendas really agreed to this arrangement. Only defendants 9 and 10 disputed this and that was how the question arose whether this adjustment is binding on defendants 9 and 10, the other two executors. As, in my view, this adjustment was agreed to by Seth Thakurdas Topandas, it is binding on the other two executors defendants 9 and 10 also.