The compromise decree in its entirety is executable and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to institute separate suits as argued by the appellant's vakil.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises in connection with the execution of a razinama decree passed in O.S. No. 80 of 1918 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. The appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent is the assignee decree-holder and the other respondents are the remaining three defendants in O.S. No. 80 of 1918 who are the sons of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, the decree-holder. The compromise decree was assigned by the next friend of the plaintiff-decree-holder to the present 1st respondent and he presented E.P. No. 4 of 1923 praying for the recognition of the assignment and for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 58,285-15 by the sale of the properties as per terms of the decree. The defendants in the suit opposed the application. The Subordinate Judge passed an order recognising the assignment subject to certain conditions and also allowing the execution of the decree. It is this order that is now appealed against by the 1st defendant-appellant.

2. In order to understand the contentions put forward on his behalf, it is necessary to state the facts relating to the compromise decree in detail. O.S. No. 80 of 1918, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore, on which the razinama decree was passed, was instituted by the minor plaintiff Kamachia Pillai represented by his adoptive mother for specific performance of contract by the present appellant and his eons, defendants 1 to 4 in pursuance of the agreement dated 5-12-1915 or for recovery of the amount of advance together with interest thereto, i.e., for Rs. 25,586-1-10. At that time there were two suits pending on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in which the present parties were interested and also there was a decree in existence against the late adoptive father of the minor plaintiff passed by the Triohinopoly Sub-Court. One of these suits, viz., O.S. No. 82 of 1918 was instituted by Nalesa Pillai who had obtained an assignment benami of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant (the present appellant) in the name of one Chockalingam, the father o the adoptive mother and next friend of the minor plaintiff in O.S. No. 80 of 1918. O.S. No. 83 of 1918, the otter suit, was instituted by the minor plaintiff in O.S. No. 80 of 1918 for recovery of the amount due under the three other deeds executed for Rs. 35,000 by the defendants in O.S. No. 80 of 1918 and the deceased Varadarajulu Naidu in favour of the adoptive father of the minor plaintiff and for delivery of possession in accordance with the aforesaid other deeds and for the recovery of swamibogam. The decree against the late adoptive father of the minor plaintiff was passed by the Trichinopoly Sub-Court in O.S. No. 98 of 1918 on its file. It was passed on promissory notes which had been executed by him. Besides compromising the present suit, namely, O.S. No. 80 of 1918, it was arranged by the razinama that the minor plaintiff should cause the heirs of Natesa Pillai not to prosecute the suit O.S. No. 82 of 1918 and that he Ehould withdraw the suit O.S. No. 83 of 1918. The defendants in consideration of the compromise of these suits agreed to pay the plaintiff (a) Rs. 53,000 in quit of all claims and that out of the sum of Rs. 53,000 they agreed to execute in favour of the minor plaintiff a promissory note for Rs. 3,000 with interest and out of the balance pay Palaniappa Chetty the decree-holder in 6. Section No. 98 of 1918 mentioned above and thus discharge his claim against the adoptive father of the plaintiff within a specified period. It was stated in the compromise that "If the defendants in this suit (O.S. No. 80 of 1918) make any default in paying the said amount within the stipulated period aforesaid the plaintiff is to proceed against the suit properties and to execute the razinama decree that may be passed in the suit, and to sell the properties and recover the amount with costs of