ORDER: By consent, the main civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of their application filed under Sec.47, C.P.C., seeking to declare the final decree passed on 29.10.1998 by the Principal District Munsif, Karaikal as inexecutable.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the decree as it stands cannot be executed since it only declares the shares and cannot be executed in the form in which it is drafted, and unless the decree also gives directions for specific allotment of shares and handing over of possession, there can be no final decree in the eye of law. Reliance was placed on Ramanuja Naicker v. Seethalakshmi Ammal, (1958)2 M.L.J.512. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the memorandum of compromise, based on which the final decree was passed, was obtained by fraud and therefore, there can be no final decree on the basis of such a memorandum of compromise. But, however, the learned counsel focussed his submissions only on the first objection.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it cannot be said that the compromise decree was obtaine

Click Here to Read the rest of this document