RAMKRISHNA Vs. LAXMINARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHBDAR , A.J.C. 1. This and the connected First Appeal No. 78-B of 1928 arise under the following circumstances: In Civil Suit No. 28 of 1926 on the file of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Akola, the plaintiffs' claim based on 4 simple money bonds to recover from the defendants Rs. 5,361-8-0 was compromised by the parties and a decree, in the following terms, was passed on 26th October 1928: It is ordered and decreed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties that

(2.) IT is unfortunate that although there were two plaintiffs the decree in some places describes them as one. Similarly in civil suit No. 8 of 1926 on the file of the same Court the plaintiffs' claim to recover from the defendants Rs. 5,400 due on a simple money bond was compromised and a decree passed, on the same day, in plaintiffs' favour on exactly identical terms as the one passed in civil Suit No. 28 of 1926 with the only difference that the property to be conveyed in this case consisted of fields Nos. 15 and 24 of mouza Lonasan. By two separate applications dated 29th June 1927 the plaintiffs decree-holders sought to execute the aforesaid decrees but in each case the defendants judgments-debtors resisted execution on identical grounds and their objections were registered in the lower Court separately, the one arising out of execution case No. 28 of 1926 as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 84 of 1927 and that relating to execution case No. 8 of 1926 as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 85 of 1927. Exactly identical issues were framed for trial in both these cases.

(3.) IN an elaborate order recorded in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 84 of 1927 the learned Subordinate Judge answered issues 1, 2 and the first part of issue 3 in the affirmative and the second part of issue 3 and the first and last parts of issue 4 in the negative. No finding was recorded on issue 4 (b). On these findings the lower Court ordered execution of the decrees to proceed. Two separate appeals challenging the correctness of the decision of the lower Court have been filed by the defendants judgment-debtors in this Court and registered as first appeals Nos. 77-B and 87-B of 1928. As the points for decision in both the cases are identical, one set of arguments was addressed by the counsel for the parties, and therefore this judgment will govern both the appeals.