1. This second appeal arises from an order in execution of a decree passed on a compromise. The plaintiff's suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into possession of a paddy field The parties settled their differences during the pendency of the suit and a compromise petition was filed on the basis of which the decree was passed. The decree provided that the defendants had no manner of right or possession in the property, that they would be allowed to raise the punja crops of 1132 as licensees and that in consideration of the same, they were to pay 860 paras of paddy to the plaintiff on or before 10th Edavam 1132 (23rd May, 1957). It was also provided that after taking the harvest of 1132 defendants 1 and 2 were not to enter the land. The decree was passed on 11-12-1956. The decree-holder applied for execution on 23-12-1957 stating that the decree was one for permanent injunction restraining the judgment-debtors from entering into possession of the land and that they were attempting to enter the land against the terms of the decree. The prayer in the execution petition was for detention of the judgment-debtors in the civil prison and