Order of Reference to a Full Bench.-This appeal is filed by the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 133 of 1942 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Anantapur. They filed an application to enter up satisfaction, — E.A.No. 218 of 1945. At that time, there was an execution application. (E.P.No.467 of 1944) pending. The amount due under the decree was Rs. 3,342-8-0 and the application for execution was in respect of that amount.

The decree-holder is a firm, Eranti Seethayya and company, consisting of two partners Eranti Seethayya and Thallam Suryanarayanappa. The application for execution was filed by Eranti Seethayya. The judgment-debtors’ application to enter up satisfaction was in respect of an alleged payment of Rs. 2,750 to the other patner, Suryanarayanappa. The judgment-debtors claimed that he accepted that amount in full satisfaction of the decree. The payment was evidenced by a receipt which has been exhibited as Ex. P. 1. and the partner, Suryanarayanappa gave evidence in support of the judgment-debtors’ application. He has a four-anna interest in the firm and, in cross-examination by the counsel appearing for his partner, he admitted that he had not been authorised to compromise the claim and further that he and his partner were on inimical terms.

The District Munsif of Anantapur held that the settlement of the decree behind the back of the managing partner “is thoroughly fraudulent and mala fide.” But, on appeal, the District Judge of Anantapur did not deal with this aspect of the case. I have thought it unnecessary to remand the case for a finding on this point as it is agreed by counsel before me that the only evidence before the District Munsif was the receipt, Ex. P-1, and the evidence of Suryanarayanappa, to which I have already referred. I cannot accept the finding of the District Munsif that the payment was fraudulent and mala fide. This was not suggested to Suryanarayanappa when he was cross-examined. All that was suggested to him was that he had no authority to settle the decretal amount for Rs. 2,750 and generally that he was not dealing with the suit or the execution proceedings. Accordingly I hold that Rs, 2,750 was in fact, paid by the judgment-debtors to the partner, Suryanarayanappa and the only question is whether that payment is sufficient to discharge the judgment-debtors from their liability under the decree in favour of the firm. Both the courts below have held that it is not, and have arrived at that decision of this court in Muthuswami v. Narasimha1. If that was the only decision of this Court on the point, there would be no difficulty; but it is not. There are two other decisions to the contrary. They are Duraiswami Sastrigal v. Venkatarama Ayyar2 and Krishna Hande v. Padmanabha Hande3.

Muthuswami v. Narasimha1 followed an earlier decision of this Court in Mohammad Silar Sahib v. Nabi Khan Sahib4, which was expressly founded on the observations of Bashyam, J., in Periaswami v. Krishna Ayyan5. Mohammad Silar Sahib v. Nabhi Khan Sahib4 was also followed in Thimma Reddi v. Subba Reddiar6, and Pitcha Kuttiya Pillai v. Doraiswami Mooppanar7. This is an imposing list of authority and ordinarily I should have felt compelled to accept the authority of the decision in Muthuswami v. Narasimha1. Also, that decision was arrived at in 1934, whereas the latter of the two decisions to the contrary was a decision of 1913. However, I feel unable to regard the point as concluded by the decision in Muthuswami v. Narasimha1. There was no discussion in that case of the decisions arrived at in Duraiswami Sastrigal v. Venkatarama Ayyar2 or Krishna Hande v. Padmanabha Hande3, although the Bench which disposed of the earlier of those two cases, (Sundara Ayyar and Phillips, JJ.), had expressly dissented from the observations of Bashyam J. in Periasami v. Krishna Ayyan5. Further, I feel that it is to be regretted that the point upon which the decision in Duraiswami Sastrigal v. Venkatarama Aiyar2 was principally foun