JUDGMENT

Bennet, J. - This is a second appeal by the defendants against the concurrent decrees of the two lower Courts decreeing a sum of money in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants' property, with the direction that the decree shall not be executed against the person of the defendants. The plaint sets forth the cause of action which is somewhat lengthy as follows: Lala Sukhdeo Prasad, the ancestor and the father of the plaintiffs, on 9th June 1914, took a lease of certain property for 11 years paying the premium of Rs. 13,000 to Rani Durga Kunwar of Kashipur of certain property. On 25th September 1914, Lala Chhedi Lal, ancestor of the defendants, took a similar lease of other property for Rs. 12,000 premium from the same lady for the same period of 11 years. This was in possession of the estate of her husband as a Hindu widow. But one Kunwar Anand Singh brought a suit in 1916 against her for possession of the estate on the ground that he had been adopted by her husband, and he also sued Sukhdeo Prasad and Chhedi Lal for possession of the property. During the pendency of this suit the Rani died in 1917, and the suit of Kunwar Anand Singh was decreed on 23rd August 1918, and the leases to Sukhdeo Prasad and Chhedi Lal were cancelled, and it is admitted that possession was obtained from them. They had. therefore been for some four years in possession of the property leased to them. The lessees brought separate appeals in the High Court which they lost on 21st March 1923. After that Kunwar Anand Singh applied in 1923 to the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad for decrees for mesne profits, and obtained one decree for Rs. 13,000 odd against Sukhdeo Prasad and one decree for Rupees 11,000 approximately against Chhedi Lal. Para. 6 of the plaint is as follows:

During the pendency of the execution of the decree, Lala Chheda Lal, the ancestor of the defendants and the father of the plaintiff, in consultation with each other went on taking objections, etc., with a view to delay the payment of the decree money. When the objections, etc., were disallowed, Lala Sukhdeo Prasad, the father of the plaintiffs and Lala Chheda Lal, the ancestor of the defendants, thinking that their zarpeshgi amounts had been misappropriated, that the decree for mesne profits had been passed (against them) and that they had been put to a great loss, in consultation with each other, thought of finding out some such means as might enable them to delay the execution of the decree for mesno profits and to evade payment of the amounts of the decrees.

As interest was not awarded in the decrees, they thought that the greater the delay the more would be their gain as regards interest of a considerable amount. Accordingly it was agreed upon that Lala Sukhdeo Prasad, the father of the plaintiffs, should first bring a suit against Kunwar Anand Singh, for the recovery of the zarpcshgi amount in respect of his lease, with the allegation that Kunwar Anand Singh got the property left by Rani Durga Kunwar and after having filed the suit should, by making an application, get the proceedings relating to the execution of the said decree for mesne profits which had been passed against the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants, stayed till the decision of the suit. It would at least take one year for the case to he decided. They also entered into an agreement to pay the amount of costs incurred in the suit from the Court of first instance up to the appellate Court half and half, and in case of their failure, to pay the costs of the opposite party to the extent of half and half. There wore also some other conditions, along with which it was also agreed upon that Chandi Earn would look after the case on behalf of Lala Ghheda Lal, the ancestor of the defendants, and that Lala Kunj Behari Lal would look after the case on behalf of the ancestor of the plaintiffs, as the execution of the decree in re Kunwar Anand Singh v. Lala Chheda Lal, the ancestor of the defendants, and Lala