One decree-holder out of several decree-holders cannot enter into a compromise or adjustment binding upon the general body of decree-holders.

ORDER:-This execution second appeal is by the judgement debtor. The facts in brief are as follows : The decree-holders respondents had a decree in their favour passed in original suit No. 1225 of 1950 for possession over certain land after demolition of the construction raised by the Judgement-debtor on the said land. The judgement-debtor-appellant, Shital Prasad, filed objection 3-C dated 2-2-1972, Paper No. 162 in Misc. Case No. 87 of 1972. The objection purported to be under Order XXI, Rule I read with Section 47, C.P.C. The said Judgement-debtor claimed certification of adjustment of decree and also challenged the maintainability of the execution application on the ground that all the heirs of a deceased decree-holder, Jugmandar Das, had not been brought on record in the execution application. It was alleged in this objection that on 19-1-1972 at about 11-00 A.M. when the Amin along with one of the decree-holders, Dhan Kumar, four constables and Thanedar etc. reached the spot, a talk about compromise started between the parties with the help of Shahjad Rai and Lala Ram Chander alias Jado Ram and it was agreed at that time that with the help of the said Shahjad Rai and Lala Ram Chander alias Jado Ram the parties would settle the matters themselves. Therefore, the Amin went back without effecting delivery of possession. Subsequently, on the said date at about 3-00 P.M. the parties and the said Shahjad Rai and Lala Ram Chander alias Jado Ram, all assembled together and the decree in question was agreed to be adjusted on the conditions set out in the said compromise

3-C dated 2-2-1972. It is not necessary to set out the details of the terms of adjustment Broadly, it may be stated that the parties are alleged to have agreed that the constructions were not to be demolished by the decree-holders and the latter also agreed not to take possession of the land standing beneath the said construction and the decree-holders are also alleged to have agreed that the said land would become the sole property of the judgement-debtor. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- was agreed to be paid to the decree-holders by the judgement-debtor. In respect of the said land the claim of whose possession was being given up by the decree-holders: It was alleged in the said objection that the sum of Rupees 7,000/- was agreed to be kept with Shahjad Rai and it was agreed between the parties that within a period of 3 or 4 days the parties would go to the court, have the compromise and adjustment certified and then the said sum of Rs. 7,000/- would be paid to the decree-holders before the Presiding Officer of the court. It was also alleged that in fact the said compromise was acted upon and, inter alia, portions of land were taken possession of by the decree-holders and certain constructions were also raised by the decree-holders in pursuance of the said adjustment or compromise. The Judgement-debtor appellant alleged that subsequently the decree-holders began to resile from the compromise and hence the said objection-cum-application under Order XXI. Rule 2, C.P.C. read with Section 47, C.P.C. was moved. The objection under Section 47, C.P.C was raised in the said paper 3-C to the effect that because of the non-substitution of the heirs of a deceased decree-holder Jugmandar Das in the execution application, the latter was not maintainable.

2. The decree-holders respondents filed their reply 7-C to the said 3-C. They flatly denied that there was any adjustment or compromise between the parties. They admitted that on 19-1-1972 when the Amin reached the spot for effecting delivery of possession, the judgement-debtor did suggest to Dhan Kumar, one of the decree-holders, that there should be an attempt to have the matter compromised and Dhan Kumar did agree that such an attempt should be made. Therefore, the Amin went back without effecting delivery of possession. However, it was denied that subsequently any adjustment or compromise was reached between the parties and.