A compromise decree, which incorporates the terms of a compromise between the parties, is intended to put an end to the litigation between them and should be construed in a manner that tends to shorten litigation.

B.P.Sinha, J.

1. This is a decree-holders appeal from the decision of the learned Subor dinate Judge of Arrah, dated 8-5-1948, partly allowing objections under S. 47, C. P. C. raised on behalf of the resp Judgment-debtor.

2. It appears that the applt instituted a suit for partition of properties said to have been joint family properties against a number of defts, including deft 5, Bansidhar Sahu, the resp in this case, who happens to be the nephew of her husband. The suit related to many items of immovable property as also of movables, including ornaments & pieces Of furniture & clothing. The matter came up to this Ct on . appeal from an order passed by the Ct below refusing to record a certain compromise. That case was Misc App No. 454 of 19.45. A D. B. of this Ct succeeded in getting the applt, who was then also the apnlt & deft 5 to agree to certain terms of compromise which are as follows:

"1. That Mt. Bilas Devi shall be declared entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/-(one hundred & twenty five) a month which shall be payable to her on the 7th of each English calendar month.

2. That the lady shall also get Rs. 5,000.00 & the same shall be paid to her by deft 5 at the rate of Rs. 2,000.00 a year & the balance of Rs. 1,000.00 shall be paid in the third year after the first two instalments have been paid. The first two thousand rupees is to be paid on or before 15-1-1948, the second instalment on or before 15-1-1949, & the balance on or before 30-6-1949. In the event of non-payment of any of the instalments, the lady shall be entitled to realise the whole amount then due by execution.

3. That the lady shall also be paid Rs. 1,400.00 on account of ornaments. Rs. 700.00 must be paid by the deft 5 on or before 15-7-1947, & the balance of Rs. 700.00 on or before the 15-1-1948. In the event of non-payment of the first instalment on the date fixed, the lady shall be entitled to realise the whole of Rs. 1,400.00 by execution.

4. That it is also agreed that the lady shall be entitled to live in the house situated in Mahalla Abarpool in the town of Arrah. Neither the lady nor any of the parties to the suit shall be entitled to sell the house during the life time of the lady.

5. That, in the event of these instalments not being paid to the lady, interest shall run at six per cent from the date of default.

6. That the lady is entitled to arrears of maintenance at this rate from 7-4-1945. Respon dents, 6, 7, 9, & 11 are minors. They are not a party to this compromise. They are not affected by this."

3. The matter did not rest there. The two parties aforesaid appeared before the Ct where the suit was pending, & a decree was passed in the suit itself, recording the terms of the com promise aforesaid. As the judgment-debtor, deft 5, did not pay the amounts covered by the terms of the compromise, the decree-holder was com pelled to take out execution, which was num bered as Exen. Case No. 4 of 1948. She claimed a total sum of Rs. 11,079/6/- being made up of the cash amounts mentioned in the terms of the compromise as also interest accrued due thereon plus arrears of maintenance for 34 months at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem with interest. The judgment-debtor filed an objection petn under S. 47 of the Code, contending, inter alia, that the decree-holder was not entitled to realise the several sums constituting her total claim as laid in the execution petn, without having recourse to a separate suit, & that the decree passed in the partition suit was "quite illegal & invalid & inexecutable". The judg ment-debtor further contended in his objection that the decree passed was against law, as laid down in O. 23 R. 3, C. P. C. & as such it was unenforceable. The question was also raised that the decree-holder was not entitled to any inte rest either on the sums of 1,400 or 5,000 or on the amount of maintenance.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled the judgment-debtors objection that the decree was inexecutable as a whole.