TEEL CHAND Vs. CHIMNI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's appeal in an execution matter and arises under the following circumstances. Decree-holders Chimniram and others had filed a suit against the appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,670/- in the court of the District Judge, Balotra. The parties then arrived at a compromise on the 19th of October, 1955, and a consent decree was obtained accordingly on the 31st October, 1955. The terms of the compromise were as follows : 1. A sum of Rs. 3,000/-was agreed to be adjusted against the sale of a house which the judgment-debtor had undertaken to have made by his brother Jeth Mal in favour of the decree-holders. 2. Two sums of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- were to be adjusted against the sale of the house and a shop respectively belonging to the judgment debtor the particulars of which properties were mentioned in the compromise. 3. A gold 'dora' of the value of Rs. 1,500/- had been given to the decree-holders by the judgment-debtor. 4. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- had also been given in cash. 5. Claim to a sum of Rs. 295/- was relinquished by the decree-holders. 6. The remaining amount of Rs. 375/- was agreed to be paid in cash by Kati Sudi 15, Samwat 2012. It was further agreed that the judgment-debtor will have the necessary documents executed with respect to the immovable properties mentioned above and registered within 10. days from the date of the compromise i. e. 19th of October, 1955, and will handover possession thereof to them. It was also agreed that all costs of registration and on account of stamps were to be defrayed by the decree-holders, and, that on the judgment-debtor's completing sales by registration and delivery of possession, the decree-holders will give a full and final receipt to the judgment-debtor. It appears that on the 21st October, 1955, the judgment-debtor made an application to the executing court that he was prepared to complete the sales with respect to the immovable properties mentioned above but the decree-holder was employing evasive tactics and therefore the decree should be executed as agreed to between the parties. We do not have the order of the court which was passed on this application, but it seems that what it said was that it was unable to help the judgment-debtor presumably because the decree-holders had not applied for execution. Nothing seems to have happened for some time, when, just before the limitation was to expire, the decree-holders made an application for execution of the decree on October 7, 1958, in which they prayed that the judgment-debtor be called upon to execute the sale deeds in compliance with the decree as per drafts submitted by him. It was now the judgment-debtor's turn to object to this. The main objections raised by him were two in number (i) that the decree contained terms which did not relate to the suit and (ii) that one of the houses comprised in the decree belonged to his brother Jeth Mal and that it was not within his power to compel him to execute a sale-deed with respect thereto in favour of the decree-holders. Both these objections were repelled by the learned District Judge by his order dated the 16th November, 1959, and the learned Judge directed that the terms of the decree providing for the execution and registration of sale-deed, with respect to the various properties mentioned in the documents be enforced as prayed for in the execution application, and that the necessary expenses in that connection be deposited in court by the decree-holders. At this stage we may also mention that the learned District Judge being of the opinion that by some oversight the decree-sheet prepared in the court of District Judge did not embody the full terms of the compromise inasmuch as following portion therein was somehow omitted from mention, viz.

(2.) FMDZH dh ckdh rkehy glc 'kjkjr ds uhps eqtc gksxha tks eqnk;yk eqnb;ku dks rk- 19-10-55 ls jkst ds vunj dj nsxka