M.N. SHUKLA, J. :- On account of divergence of opinion between two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Narain Tewari v. Brij Narain, AIR 1931 All 326 and Lalji v. Gajadhar, AIR 1962 All 431 this Execution Second Appeal filed by a judgement-debtor had been referred to a Full Bench.

2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent decree-holder obtained a compromise decree on 27-1-1954 for possession over the plots in dispute after demolition of certain constructions said to have been raised by the judgement-debtor. The compromise decree provided that the judgement-debtor would remove the constructions and deliver possession of the properly to thc decree-holder after the latter served him with a notice giving him two months' time to remove the constructions. According to the compromise device the decree-holder could serve notice upon the judgment-debtor whenever the former desired to make his own constructions over the said land. It was further provided in the compromise decree that in default of the judgement-debtor in removing his constructions and delivering possession on service of notice the decree-holder shall be entitled to execute the decree for possession