Jackson, J.

1. Under a compromise decree in the Sub-Court, North Arcot, dated 30th October 1927, the zemindar of Punganur was directed to pay the plaintiff arrears of maintenance at Rs. 30 per mensem and future maintenance at Rs. 40 per mensem and in the event of his fail-lure to pay the maintenance amount due as aforesaid the plaintiff was at liberty to execute the decree and recover the amount. The plaintiff applied for execution on 27th April 1927 for arrears of maintenance from 1st March 1922 to 1st March 1925. The zemindar pleaded adjustments amounting to Rs. 5,527-7-0. The question was then raised whether under Order 21, Rule 2 (3) such adjustments being uncertified could be recognized by the executing Court.

2. The case law applicable to this question has been exhaustively cited by the learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. A. C. Sampath Ayyangar but the parties are agreed that all the law relevant to this case is correctly set forth in Lodd Govinda Doss v. Rajah of Karvetnagar [1915] 29 M.L.J. 219 p. 226. Where no intimation is conveyed by the decree-holder, it is doubtful whether the Court itself can start an enquiry on the ground that the decree-holder should have