A compromise entered into by one of the joint decree-holders without the consent of the other decree-holder is not lawful and, therefore, cannot be recognized.

1. Decree-holders in O.S. No. 957 of 1980, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Namakkal, are the revision petitioners.

2. Suit filed by the decree-holders was one for specific performance of agreement of sale. On 13.7.1982, a compromise decree was passed. It reads as follows:—

“This suit coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Thiru N.R. Venkatesan, Advocate for plaintiff, and of Thiru. K. Shanmugham, Advocate for defendants, and both parties made joint endorsement on plaint, and in view of the said joint endorsement, this Court doth order and decree”.

1) That the plaintiffs do pay to the defendants 1 and 2 the sum of Rs. 1,200/- being the sale price and have the sale deed in respect of the suit properties executed by them in accordance with the sale agreement dated 31.8.80.

2) If there are crops in the suit properties, the defendants are entitled to harvest the same and deliver possession to the plaintiff;

3) that if the defendants default in executing the sale deed, the plaintiffs are at liberty to deposit the said sum of Rs. 1,200/- into Court and have the sale deed executed through process of Court and take delivery of possession; and

4) the parties do bear their respective cost. (Cost memo not filed by either side)”.

3. The compromise is dated 13.7.1982.

4. Pursuant to the compromise, when the sale deed was not executed, Execution Petition was filed on 12.7.1985, to enforce the decree. When notice of Execution Petition was received, an objection was taken by defendants contending that the Execution Petition is not executable, since a compromise has been entered into on 20.4.1987, between first plaintiff and first defendant, whereby the first plaintiff has agreed not to execute the decree, and the same was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar. In view of that compromise, the first defendant wanted the Execution Petition to be dismissed. That counter was filed on 1.9.1987.

5. By the impugned order dated 30.4.1991, court below said that the decree itself is null and void, since the same has been cancelled by the first defendant. It was of the view that one decree-holder alone cannot compel the execution of the decree. The said order is challenged in this Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the court below is perverse and illegal. According to him, it is a joint decree, and both the decree-holders are entitled to get the benefits of the decree, and one of the decree-holders alone is not competent to have the decree executed, and there is no authority given by one decree-holder to the other decree-holder to enter into a compromise. He also submitted that being a joint decree, discharge by one of the decree-holders will not affect the person who has not joined the compromise. He also said that under Section 23 of the Contract Act, if the compromise is accepted, that will affect the person or property of the other decree-holder, and therefore, the compromise is unlawful. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that even though the alleged compromise is dated 20.4.1987 the same is not recorded by the Executing Court within the time stipulated and, therefore, the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to have the same recognised, satisfaction could not be entered, and finally, when the decree for specific performance is not rescinded by any rule known to law, the decree is liable to be executed.

7. As against the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that inspite of the decree for specific performance, the agreement does not merge with the decree, the decree only declares that the contract is enforceable and, therefore, inspite of the decree, the Court can refuse to implement the decree, and all the principles for granting a specific relief or refusing a specific relief are applicable to execution also. If so, when one of the parties who wants to take the benefit of the decree, has relinquished his rights in terms of the sub