The legal point established is that compromise decrees are executable, and once an agreement becomes a rule of the Court, the provisions of the Contract Act do not apply.

Subhbdar, A J C—This and the connected First Appeal No. 78-B of 1928 arise under the following circumstances:

In Civil Suit No. 28 of 1926 on the file of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Akola, the plaintiffs' claim based on 4 simple money bonds to recover from the defendants Rs. 5,361-8-0 was compromised by the parties and a decree, in the following terms, was passed on 26th October 1928:

It is ordered and decreed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties that

(1) in lieu of the amount of the claim and plaintiff's costs and interest up to date at 2 P.C.P. m. the defendants 1 and 2 to execute a sale-deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the fields Nos. 22/1 and 31 of mouza Lonsan on 1st November 1926 free from all incumbrances and after taking the crop of 1926-1927 give possession of the same to the plaintiff on 1st March 1927.

(2) That plaintiff do pay the costs of the execution of the sale-deeds.

(3) That defendants do pay off the mortgage of the fields in favour of Bhagwandin Ramlal and hand over his receipt of full satisfaction to plaintiff and obtain his attestation to the plaintiff's sale-deed.

(4) And that defendants 1 and 2 do pay their own costs of suit.

(5) Defendants 1 and 2 do pay land revenue for 1926-1927.

2. It is unfortunate that although there were two plaintiffs the decree in some places describes them as one. Similarly in civil suit No. 8 of 1926 on the file of the same Court the plaintiffs' claim to recover from the defendants Rs. 5,400 due on a simple money bond was compromised and a decree passed, on the same day, in plaintiffs' favour on exactly identical terms as the one passed in civil Suit No. 28 of 1926 with the only difference that the property to be conveyed in this case consisted of fields Nos. 15 and 24 of mouza Lonasan. By two separate applications dated 29th June 1927 the plaintiffs decree-holders sought to execute the aforesaid decrees but in each case the defendants judgments-debtors resisted execution on identical grounds and their objections were registered in the lower Court separately, the one arising out of execution case No. 28 of 1926 as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 84 of 1927 and that relating to execution case No. 8 of 1926 as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 85 of 1927. Exactly identical issues were framed for trial in both these cases.

3. A very fair idea of the contentions of the parties as advanced in the pleadings will be formed by reproducing the following issues that were fixed for trial by the lower Court:

1 Whether the decree-holders are not entitled to ask for sale-deed and delivery of possession of the fields from judgment-debtors by way of execution and whether it is necessary for decree-holders to file a separate suit for the purpose?

2 (a) Whether the term regarding execution of sale-deed and delivery of possession of property could not be embodied in the decree as being matter extraneous to the suit and is this portion of the decree therefore not executable?

(b) Was it necessary for the judgment-debtors to press the above objection at the time of the passing of the decree and is not the above objection open to them now?

3 (a) Whether the decree-holders are not entitled to ask for a sale-deed from the judgment-debtors owing to their failure to perform their parl of the contract as embodied in the decree?

(b) Whether the decree-holders-did not purchase stamp for the sale deed owing to judgment-debtors unwillingness to execute the sale deed?

4 (a) Whether decree-holders allowed judgment-debtors to perform the summer operations and sow the fields on an assurance that they would take a sale deed on Hangam?

(b) Are the decree-holders on account of the above conduct debarred from asking for a sale deed by the present application which is filed before the expiry of the Hangam?

(c) Whether the judgment-debtors made over possession of the fields to decree-holders who accordingly did summer operations and whether judgment-debtors subsequently obstructed decree-hold