BECHARSANG BHUPATSANG Vs. NARAN MOTI MEGHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned pleader for the appellants in this case. The history of the execution of this decree is long; but it is not necessary to go into the details of that history for the purposes of the short point which has been argued in support of this appeal.

(2.) It appears that a decree for sale of the mortgaged property was passed in favour of the plaintiff's on November 17, 1896 and after a number of proceedings ultimately it was sent for execution to the Collector along with two other money decrees which were then pending before the Talukdari Settlement . Officer for execution against the same judgment-debtors. That Officer made a certain arrangement for the satisfaction of the decrees including the decree in question which is described in the judgment of the first Court in these terms :- The compromise for the dues of the plaintiffs under all the three decrees, which on November 16, 1918, amounted to Us. 31,500 was settled for Rs. 15,750 by mortgaging 105 acres of defendants hinds to the plaintiffs. On November 10, 1918, the Talukdari Settlement Officer Mr. Gordon writes below the plaintiffs statement before him embodying all the terms: approved; the creditors agree before me. The said compromise was sent to this Court for being certified, and it was accordingly certified on December 7,1918.

(3.) An application against this arrangement was made on December 9, 1918, by the judgment-debtors which has given rise to this second appeal.