NANALAL GULABCHAND AND ANR. Vs. SHIVSINGH MAKHANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of (sic)cution proceeding. The material facts are as follows:

(2.) PLAINTIFFS who are the applicants in this filed a suit against the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 250/ -. In this suit the parties had (sic) at a compromise and on the basis of this compromise a decree was passed on 23 -9 -43. This (sic) provided that the Defendant should pay (sic) -8 -0 in all, out of which Rs. 50/ - were to be on Chet Badi 13 Samvat 2000 and for the (sic)ning sum of Rs. 237/8/ - it was agreed that the Defendant should deliver possession of his field bearing Khasra No. 18 assessed to revenue of Rs. 7/12/ - for a period of six years from Samvat 2001 to 2006.

(3.) THE trial Court on these contentions held that the decree -holder was in fact permitted to remain in possession for only two years. Therefore out of the decretal amount, Rs. 100/ - at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per year should be deducted. It accepted the contention of the judgment -debtor as regards the non -liability for payment of Rs. 25/ - per year for the period of four years. The trial Court therefore permitted execution to the extent of Rs. 187/8/ - only.