High Court Of Calcutta
Salil Kumar Datta
BIMAL KUMAR GAYEN - Appellant
Versus
AMIYA GOPAL MONDAL - Respondent
AFAO 69 Of 1965
Decided On : 08/14/1975
DECREE - EXECUTION - COMPROMISE DECREE - TERMS OF COMPROMISE - WHETHER EXECUTABLE - ORDER 23, RULE 3, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit property held under his tenancy. The suit was decreed on a solenama entered into by and between the plaintiff and the contesting defendant No. 1. The solenama provided that the plaintiff admitted the disputed tank to be the khas property of defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 1 granted lease of the disputed tank to the plaintiff for a period of seven years at an annual rent, on the expiration of the lease period the plaintiff will vacate the disputed tank and make over peaceful possession thereof to the defendant No. 1 and in default the defendant No. 1 will be entitled to recovery of possession of the said tank in execution of the decree. The defendant No. 1 transferred his interest in the suit property to the appellant before us who put the said decree in execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the decree was inexecutable so far as it sought to recover possession of the disputed tank and the appellate court was justified in dismissing the execution case.
Issues: Whether the decree was executable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the terms of the compromise regarding the lease as also of the recovery of possession of the suit property in certain contingency were clearly extraneous to the suit and could not be enforced in execution of the decree though they could form the basis of a separate suit on a concluded and binding agreement.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE only point in this appeal is whether the decree is executable.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff judgment-debtor filed the Title Suit, being Title Suit No. 231 of 1956, praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the disputed tank or otherwise interfering with his possession and enjoyment thereof. This suit was decreed on a solenama entered into by and between the plaintiff and the contesting defendant No. 1. The material provisions of the solenama broadly are as follows :" (a) The plaintiff admits the disputed tank to be the khas property of defendant No. 1. (b) The defendant No. 1 grants lease of the disputed tank to the plaintiff for a period of seven years at an annual rent of Rs. 750/ -. (c) On the expiration of Chaitra, 1369 B. S. the plaintiff will vacate the disputed tank and make over peaceful possession thereof to the defendant No. 1 and in default the defendant No. 1 will be entitled to recovery of possession of the said tank in execution of the decree. (d) If the defendant No. 1 fails to use the tank for his own exclusive business purpose (rearing fish spawns), then the plaintiff will be entitled to further lease for such terms and conditions as may be agreed. "it appears that the suit was decreed on the aforesaid solenama against the defendant No. 1 and the solenama was made a part of the decree. The decree was subsequently registered.
( 3 ) THE defendant No. 1 transferred his interest in the suit property to the appellant before us who put the said decree in execution in Title Execution Case No. 60 of 1963. The judgment-debtor-respondent No. 1 filed an objection under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure contending that the decree was not executable giving rise to Misc. Case No. 57 of 1964. The learned Munsif overruled the objection against the execution of the decree and dismissed the Misc. Case. On appeal the learned Appellate Court allowed the objection and dismissed the execution case. The present appeal is against this decision.
( 4 ) MR. Shyama Charan Mitter, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, has contended that the appellate court's judgment was vitiated by misconception of the terms of the decree. It was held by the said court that there was no stipulation that the decree-holder would be entitled to recovery of possession of the suit tank by execution of the decree in the event amicable possession was not delivered on the expiry of the agreed period. Mr. Mitter drew my attention to the express provisions of the decree which provided that in the event of the failure of the judgment-debtor to make over peaceful possession thereof the defendant No. 1 would be entitled to recovery of possession in execution of the decree. In view of the erroneous misreading of the provisions of the decree, it was submitted that the judgment under appeal should be set aside.
( 5 ) THE court's power to record a compromise and pass a decree on such compromise has been provided in Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions of the said rule are as follows :"where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the suit. "it appears from the above provisions that the Court is entitled to record a compromise when a suit is adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise. This obviously Indicates that the suit can be adjusted by lawful agreement or compromise only in respect of matters connected with or embraced within such proceeding and not of matters extraneous to it. The decree to be passed is to be in accordance with such compromise or agreement in so far as it rel
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.