B KISHEN PRASAD Vs. KUNJ BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree-holder's appeal. On the 29 of May 1924 the suit out of which the present execution proceedings have arisen was compromised. The appellants here had claimed Rs. 15,000 odd and the claim had been denied in toto, bat on the date aforesaid the parties came to terms, the language of which will be material, for there is a good deal, of controversy over its interpretation. Briefly the terms were to the effect that if the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 6,000 within a month and a half of the date of the compromise, and the balance of the sum that would make up one half of the amount of the claim, namely Rs. 1,832.- 8-0 together with the costs in the course of three months, the plaintiffs would remit the balance of their claim. In the cage of default on the part of the defendants the plaintiffs would recover the entire amount of their claim. According to the terms of the compromise, therefore, the sum of Rupees 6,000 was payable on the 13 of July 1924 and the balance to make up the one-half of the amount claimed and the costs were to be paid on or before the 29 of August 1924. The costs amounted to Rs. 1,552-15-9. The defendants paid the sum of Rs. 6,000 on the 15 of July 1924. On the 31 of August 1924 they paid a further sum of Rs. 2,000 also out of Court. On the 10 of September 1924 the appellants took out execution of their decree and claimed the whole amount for which the suit had been brought minus the sums which they had already received. In other words, they treated the whole of the claim as due to them and were expressly of opinion that there had been a default in terms of the compromise. On the 15 of September 1924 a further sum of Rs. 900 was paid and a few days later, on the 29 of September 1924, a sum of Rs. 185-7-9 was paid. Thus on the last mentioned data the entire sum of Rs. 9,085-7-9, decreed to the plaintiffs, with conditions attached, was paid up.

(2.) In spite of the payments, the decree-holders wanted to proceed with the execution and the judgment-debtors contested the application. They raised a question of fact, namely, the plaintiffs decree-holders had agreed to take the sum of Rs. 185-7-9 in full satisfaction of their claim. This question has been decided against the judgment-debtors and this question has not again been brought up before us for decision.

(3.) The judgment-debtors further contended that the terms of the compromise were of a nature as could be interfered with on principles of equity by the Court and the Court should not execute the decree for any sum beyond the one already paid out. In reply to this, the decree-holders contended that the Court executing the decree had no jurisdiction to go behind the terms of the decree and in any case the terms of the compromise were not of a penal character and on a true interpretation of the decree the whole amount claimed and the costs were payable.