Some of the joint decree-holders can give a valid discharge on behalf of the remaining decree-holders relating to the shares of the latter in the decretal amount, provided they have a clear authority from the other decree-holders.

The short question which requires determination in this mis­cellaneous second appeal arising out of an execution case, is whether some of the joint decree-holders can give a valid dis­charge on behalf of the remaining decree-holders relating to the shares of the latter in the decretal amount. The facts leading to the appeal, in brief, are as follows:-

2. 25 persons obtained a joint decree against 32 persons for an amount of Rs. 4491/- and odd plus costs of the suit. In the decree, the extent of liability of each of the judgment-debtors was specified but so far as the decree-holders are concern­ed, the decree was joint-their respective shares remaining unspecified. Later, 8 of the judgment-debtors including the appel­lants paid Rs. 1177/-, to the fullest extent of their liability, to 11 of the decree-hol­ders, namely decree-holders Nos. 13 to 23 and obtained a receipt from them. After this, the other decree-holders started the ins­tant execution case against all the judgment-debtors for realisation of a sum of Rupees 4466-75 P. inclusive of the proportionate costs, after deducting from the decretal amount a sum of Rs. 1177.18 P. i. e. Rupees 900/- of the decretal amount and Rupees 277.18 P. as proportionate costs, represent­ing the shares of the decree-holders Nos. 13 to 23 in the decretal amount. The eight judgment-debtors who made payment to decree-holders Nos. 13 to 23 then filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to record satisfaction of the decree, so far as they are concerned, in view of the earlier payment made by them to 11 of the decree-holders. The executing decree-holders filed objection against this petition stating inter alia that the decreeholders Nos. 13 to 23 had no authority to give any discharge to the petitioners in res­pect of the shares of the other decree-hold­ers and that the receipt granted by them is not binding on other decree-holders.

3. The learned Sub-Judge, before whom the execution petition was filed, after hearing both the parties, allowed the peti­tion under Or. 21, Rule 2 and exempted the petitioners from payment of any further amount under the decree. The decree-hol­ders then preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge held that some of the decree-holders are not authorised under the law to give a valid discharge with regard to any part of the decretal dues without a clear authority from the other decree-holders and that as such, the payment made to some of the decree-holders and the certificate of satisfaction obtained from such of the decree-holders is not binding on other decree-holders who can take out execution for realisation of the entire decretal amount. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned District Judge, four of the eight judgment-debtors, who resisted the decree, so far as they are con­cerned, in view of the earlier payment made by them, have come up with this second ap­peal.

4. The first contention of Mr. Bhattacherjee, the learned counsel for the appellants was that the learned lower ap­pellate Court erred in law by holding that some of the joint decree-holders alone can­not grant a valid discharge of the liabilities of the appellants under the decree. His second contention was that the execution petition of the decree-holders-respondents ought to have been held to be not main­tainable in law as the same was not filed by ah1 the decree-holders or for the benefit of all the decree-holders.

5. The learned counsel for the ap­pellants could not show me any authority in support of his contention that some of the decree-holders alone are competent to give a valid discharge on behalf of the Other co-decree-holders in the absence of any authority from such co-decree-holders. He sought to rely on the decision in Dhondhe Prasad v. Sewak AIR 1954 All 739, but this decision clearly goes against him. It was held in this case that it is not open to one of the two joint decree-holders to certi­fy satisfaction of the whole decree so

Click Here to Read the rest of this document