S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The judgment debtor appeals an order of the learned Single Judge who declined his objections to the attachment and sale of land.

2. This case has a complicated and chequered litigation history, recounted hereafter. The respondent (hereafter called "decree holder" and individually as "Manali" and "the daughter"-to describe the first and second respondents in the course of this judgment) applied for execution of the interim order dated 28.10.1998 of this Court (in I.A. Nos.11261/1997, 2634 and 2635/1998 in Suit No.2583/1997) The order directed, the appellant inter alia, to provide a residence to the respondent/decree holder in accordance with the family settlement agreement dated 04.11.1994 (“the settlement”) entered into between the parties. In terms of the settlement, a direction was made to deposit school fee and other charges in connection with studies of Decree Holder No.2 (hereafter “the daughter”) and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Extracts of the order are as follows:

"37. The plaintiffs are thus entitled to succeed. The interim maintenance is fixed at Rs. 40,000/- per month in view of the settlement dated November 4,1994. The defendants are liable to pay the maintenance fixed at the abovesaid rate from January 1, 1997 onwards. The defendants are directed to clear the arrears of maintenance for the period from January 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998 at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month amounting to Rs. 8,40,000/- within two months from today.

38. The defendants are further directed to pay future maintenance, month by month, at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month, on or before the 5th day of every English calendar month.

39. The defendants would also pay and deposit the school fees and other charges in connection with the studies of plaintiff no.2 straightaway with the school wherever she might be studying.

40. The defendants are further directed to provide a residence to the plaintiffs as agreed upon in the family settlement dated November 4, 1994 (vide clause 4) without two months from today."

3. The facts, to the extent relevant, are that on 10.02.1989, the first respondent Manali, and the second appellant (hereafter “Ravi Singhal”) got married. Their daughter (Decree holder No. 2) was born in 1991. The three of them lived at Vasant Vihar till November 1994. They used to live in a joint family with Ravi Singhal’s father, mother and younger brother. Manali had to accompany her ailing mother abroad for treatment; she returned to India on 31.10.1994. According to Manali, when her mother was very seriously ill, Ravi Singhal said that he did not want to continue with the marital relationship. He told her that he had moved out of the marital home at Vasant Vihar. In these circumstances, Manali and her daughter left the matrimonial home -at Vasant Vihar and went to stay with her parents. After some talks between the couple’s family members, on 04.11.1994 the Settlement between the parties was arrived at. Its relevant conditions are outlined below:

(i) Ravi Singhal agreed to provide a residential house to the Manali and his daughter in South Delhi (Clause (i)).

(ii) Ravi Singhal and the other defendants were to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 40,000/- to Manali and her daughter (Clause (ii)).

(iii) The daughter was to be in Manali’s custody (a condition rendered irrelevant now, since the daughter is well over 18)

(iv) A house was to be provided to Manali within 3 months by the defendants; it was to be chosen by her (Clause (iv)).

(v) Ravi Singhal agreed to provide Manali and the daughter a new car every 3 years for their use

(vi) Expenses of school and college education of the daughter was to be borne by Ravi Singhal. In the event the daughter was to be educated abroad then Ravi was to bear all the necessary expenses.

(vii) Ravi agreed to provide fully paid First class vacation once a year for a period of 30 days to Manali and his daughter.

(viii) Ravi Singhal agreed to bear all the