Modi, J.—This is an execution second appeal by the judgment-debtor Chimna arising out of a suit for money. The respondents Chunnilal and Bakhtawarmal along with five others who have not been made parties to this appeal instituted a suit against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 3073/7/-. The parties obtained a decree on the footing of a compromise from the court of the learned Judicial Superintendent, Sojat, by which it was provided that the present appellant would pay a sum of Rs. 700/- on Falgun Sudi 11, Svt. 2004 and a further instalment of Rs. 1000/- only on Baisakh Sudi 15 of the same Samwat year but that in case he defaulted to make the aforesaid payments on the due dates, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the entire suit amount, that is, Rs. 3073/7/-. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the suit. It is admitted that the present appellant paid the first instalment of Rs. 700/- a little after Falgun Sudi 11, Svt. 2004 which was, however, accepted by the respondents. As regards the second instalment, the appellants case is that he offered the amount to the decree-holders on the due date but they refused to accept the money. It is further alleged that as the courts had closed for the summer vacations immediately thereafter, the appellant deposited the entire sum of Rs. 100/- in the executing court on the 1st July, 1948, when that court reopened after the long vacation saying in his application that the decree-holders had refused to accept the money on its having been offered to them. On 1st July, 1948, respondent Bakhtawarmal who was one of the decree-holders, filed an execution application for the recovery of the whole of the decretal amount except the sum of Rs. 700/- already received, and obtained a warrant of attachment against the judgment-debtors property. The latter raised an objection that he had satisfied the entire decree and was not liable to pay anything more towards its satisfaction. The executing court dismissed the objection. The finding of that court was that the judgment-debtor had failed to pay the instalments on the due dates and that his version that he had offered to pay the sum of Rs. 1000/- to the decree-holders on the due date was false and that the deposit of Rs. 1000/- made by him on the 1st July, 1948, was not a sufficient compliance with the terms of the decree. The judgment debtor took an appeal from the above decree to the learned District Judge, Pali, who affirming the findings of the court below, dismissed the appeal. This second appeal has been filed from the above judgment and decree.

2. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondents that this appeal was defective for want of necessary parties thereto and must be dismissed. The argument of learned counsel was as follows. The decree had been obtained against the present appellant by seven persons in all. Of these, Chunnilal and Bakhtawarmal only have been impleaded as parties to this appeal. The other decree holders were Hastimal and Babulal who have been described as minor sons of Chunnilal and they had brought the suit through their father Chunnilal who acted as their next friend. Jeevraj and Prithviraj were also decree-holders and they were sons of Juharmal. It appears that they were also minors and sued through their next friend Chunnilal. The seventh decree-holder was Bastimal, also minor son of Juharmal, and he sued through his father Juharmal who was his next friend. The name? of all these persons appear in the decree of the trial court dated 18th March, 1949, as plaintiffs. The contention of learned counsel is that all these persons are necessary parties to the present appeal as they had obtained a joint decree against the present appellant. He cited Chandra Kumar vs. Elahi Buksha (1) (A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 667.) in his support where it was held that where the result of not joining some defendants in an appeal would be that if the appeal is decreed there will be two inconsistent decrees, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document