SANGAVARAPU ANJANEYULU Vs. PARANKUSAIN RANGACHARYULU AND COVERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a point about the construction of O. 21, R. 2 of the Code of: Civil Procedure The material facts may be set but briefly: A petition O. P, 17 of 1940 was filed by the trustee of the temple of Sri Chennakesava Swamy situated at Perna Nitta for recovery of possession of land belonging to the institution and a decree was obtained. While the decree was being executed the trustee and the hereditary archakas of the temple entered into a compromise by and under which the properties were divided into, seven shares out of which four shares were allotted to the archakas for their remuneration and performance of Nitya Naiyedyam and Paditharam services, while the other three were kept for the institution. This is evidenced by Ex. B -1. This could not be reported to the Court and full satisfaction of the decree entered as meanwhile he was removed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board as it was felt that in entering this compromise he acted to the detriment; of the institution. The present appellant was appointed as interim trustee and he took out execution of the decree. In bar of execution the respondents, the hereditary archakas of the temple, pleaded the above said compromise. Accepting this objection, the District Judge of Guntur dismissed the execution petition. Aggrieved by that order, the interim trustee has brought this appeal.

(2.) IN support of this appeal it is urged by Sri Subrahmanyam that as the adjustment was uncertified the trial Court should have ignored it and proceeded with the execution petition. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the adjustment in this case would come within the mischief of O. 21, R. 2, C. P. C. In order to appreciate the contentions arising in this appeal, it is convenient to set out the terms of R. 2 of O. 21. It recites :

(3.) THIS provision of law has been the subject f judicial scrutiny. The leading case on the subject s Naravanaswamy Naidu v. Rangaswamy Naidu, : ILR 9 Mad 716: 24 Mad LW 235: (AIR 1926 Mad 749) (A). It was laid down there that O. 21, R. 2, C. P. C, would apply only to decrees where money was payable irrespective of whether it included other reliefs or not. There, a compromise decree was passed which provided that in case one of the defendants paid to the decree holders a stated sum of money at a particular time the property should be reconveyed to one of the defendants, but if there was a default in such payment the decree -holders themselves would be entitled to enjoy the properties with absolute rights.