JUDGMENT

Piggott, J. - This is an execution first appeal by certain judgment-debtors. The respondent Rukia Begam was the widow of one Muhammad Husain. The judgment-debtors-appellants are the remaining heirs of this gentleman. The respondent had a claim for dower-debt against the estate of her late husband and admittedly this claim much exceeded the entire value of the estate. The lady brought a suit, and it is admitted that a sum of Rs. 27,030 was due to her under a decree obtained in the said suit. The application out of which this appeal arises was one by the judgment-debtors for an order certifying that this decree for Rs. 27,000 bad been completely satisfied. Their case is that a sum of Rs. 14,000 bad been paid to the decree-holder out of Court and that the decree-holder had herself certified personally before the execution Court the receipt of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 14,000. They stated further that, by an agreement between the parties arrived at about the same time, it was settled that the balance of Rs. 13,000 should be paid off in accordance with the terms of a somewhat complicated compromise. It seems that in this compromise two items of Immovable properties were referred to, a house and a Zemindari share, The house is valued at about Rs. 5,000, and it is provided that the judgment debtors shall either pay Rs. 5,000 to the decree-holder or make a conveyance in her favour of the house itself. With regard to the Zemindari share it is provided that there is to be a valuation of the same by oertain chosen arbitrators and that the judgment-debtors shall have the option of either conveying the property itself to the decree-holder or paying to her the amount of the valuation. The case for the judgment-debtors is that this Zemindari share has been valued at Rs. 2,068 and that they have paid this amount into Court for the credit of the decree-holder. The decree-holder's case is that the compromise was obtained from her by fraud. With regard to the sum of Rs. 13,000 she says she never received payment of the same, but was induced to go into Court and falsely state that she had done so by the false representation conveyed to her on behalf of the judgment-debtors that, if she did not do this, one or more of them was likely to be sent to prison by order of the execution Court. She further said that, even when she made this statement by which she understood herself to be abandoning her claim to Rs. 14,000 out of what was due to her under the decree, she believed that the rest of the arrangement come to was that the judgment-debtors would pay her Rs. 13,000 in cash within a short interval of time. She says she never knew or understood that, as an alternative to the payment of Rs. 13,000 in cash, the judgment-debtors were to be allowed the option of conveying to her Immovable property which she did not want and would not know what to do with if she got it. She says further that she knew nothing whatever about any arrangement for the valuation of the Zemindari share, that she did not agree to its valuation by any chosen arbitrators and that she never agreed to accept whatever sum these arbitrators might choose to fix as the value of this property as equivalent to the sum of Rs. 8,000 which, even on the judgment debtors own showing, would remain due to her under the decree. Incidentally she also says that the Zemindari property has been greatly undervalued at Rs. 2,068.

2. The Court below has dealt with the case in a somewhat peculiar manner. To begin with, it had before it simply an application by the judgment debtors to certify full satisfaction of the decree. It has gone a good deal beyond merely rejecting this application. It has come to a finding that the decree-holder is bound, so far as the execution Court is concerned, by her admission that she had received Rs. 14,000 out of Court, although at the same time it expressed grave doubts whether any such payment had in fact been made. With regard to the rest of the compromise it hold