A compromise decree creating a charge on certain properties for the satisfaction of the decretal debt is capable of execution by sale of the charged properties without the necessity of having recourse to a separate suit to enforce the charge.

1. In Civil Suit No. 16 of 1927 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Wardha, respondent 1 had sued the appellant and the other two respondents in respect of certain debts. After a good deal of contest the parties effected a compromise whereby the defendants agreed to pay Rs. 55,000 with future interest thereon at Rs. 9 per cent per annum in 7 annual instalments. Other terms regarding repayment are set out in great detail in an application of the parties presented to the Court on 22nd April 1930 praying that a decree be passed in accordance with those terms. Three of the principal terms of the compromise with which we are concerned in this appeal are embodied in paras. 7, 8 and 9 of the said application which run as under: 7. In default of any two instalments in whole or in part, defendants shall be liable to pay the entire amount is a lump sum and when the lump payment falls due, intetest shall run at 1 per cent per mensem only.

8. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 55,000 and future interest shall be a charge on the defendant's house and property mentioned in the act companying list.

9. Plaintiff's decree as stated above shall be a charge on the defendant's said property, and if the decree is not satisfied, the plaintiff shall have a right to recover the amount by sale of the property subject to the charge, and a right to realize deficit, if any, from the defendants' other property.

2. The decree which followed, after directing the defendants to pay Rupees 55,000 in seven instalments, as per terms given in the compromise petition states as under:

The following property will remain charged till satisfaction. Plaintiff will be at liberty also to recover balance, if any, from other estate of the defendants, left unpaid after the charge property is exhausted,

3. Subsequently on an application by the plaintiff that the decree did not direct, as per terms of the compromise the sale of the property charged the lower Court amended the decree by inserting the following clause:

Property under charge shall be sold if payment is not made.

4. Default having occurred in the payment of the instalments the plaintiff decree-holder filed an application in the lower Court for execution of the decree by sale of the charged properties. The appellant contested the execution proceedings by urging that since the decree merely declared a Charge over the properties sought to be sold the plaintiff was not entitled to sell them in execution but must bring a separate suit to enforce the charge. This contention was overruled by the lower Court and the appellant has therefore filed the present appeal. The sole question which arises for decision in the present appeal, is if under the terms of the decree, which of course must be interpreted in the light of the terms set forth in the compromise petition, the respondent decree-holder is entitled to sell the properties, charged for the payment of the debt due under the decree, in execution or must he bring a. separate suit to enforce that charge... In other words, is the decree merely declaratory or one complete in itself so as to be capable of execution? It is argued for the appellant that since the decree does not expressly direct the sale of the properties, charged with the debt, in execution it must be construed as a decree merely declaring a charge which must be enforced by a separate suit Under Section 67, T.P. Act, and that Under Rule 15 read with Rule 14, Order 34, Civil P.C., the respondent decree-holder is not entitled to proceed to sell the property in execution of the decree. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on Aubhoyessury Debee v. Gouri Sunkur Panday, 1895 22 ILR(Cal) 859; Matangini Dassee v. Chooneymoney Dossee, 1895 22 ILR(Cal) 903; Hem Ban v. Bihari Gir,1905 28 ILR(All) 58: Posti Mal v. Radhakisan Lalchand, 1932 AIR(All) 439 and Gobinda Chandra v. Kailas Chandra, 1918 AIR(Cal) 705. The first Calcutta and the second Allahabad cases were decided with reference to th