Wallace, J.

1. This case arises out of an execution petition. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs, obtained a money decree against the respondents in 1919. The 1st plaintiff for himself and as guardian of his minor brothers, plaintiffs 2 and 3, put in an execution petition on 1st September, 1919, to recover the money. The 1st defendant was arrested and brought to Court under a warrant. On the warrant the appellants vakil endorsed on 4th September, 1919, " Judgment-debtor may be released. Decree fully satisfied." The executing Court however then refused to record satisfaction on the ground that two of the applicants in the execution petition were minors. Neither party took any further steps to have the satisfaction of the decree recorded. On 22nd January, 1920 the 1st plaintiff for himself and as guardian of minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 again applied for execution. The judgment-debtor pleaded that the decree had already been fully satisfied. The executing Court originally proceeded on the question of law only and held that the payment endorsed on the warrant, even if true, was not a payment in law since under Order 32, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, the 1st plaintiff was not e