SUKUMARI DEVI Vs. MUNGNEERAM BHANGAR AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (After stating facts the judgment proceeded.) It was argued on behalf of the appellant that Section 145 would not authorize the order which the learned Judge made in the case.

(2.) I do not think it necessary to refer to any of the cases cited in this Court except one, which I will presently mention, because in my judgment the facts of this case are such as to differentiate it from any of the authorities cited.

(3.) The position, in my judgment, is clear. The defendant agreed that a decree should be made against him for Rs. 1,37,000 with interest, and that it should be paid by instalments therein mentioned, that security should be furnished by the 1 January 1925 and that until such security was furnished, the "present security" should remain, that is to say, the title- deeds which had been deposited in August 1924 by the defendant and his wife, the appellant, with the Registrar of this Court. 3. The defendant further agreed that if he failed to pay three consecutive instalments, the whole amount of the decree should become payable and the decree-holder in such case might execute the decree irrespective of his right against the security and might also execute against the security.