JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich in an execution case dismissing the appellant's objection to execution of a certain decree, dated 21st July 1922. The facts of the case are as follows: One Mt. Taluqdei was the donee under a deed of gift executed by Thakur Man-dhatta Singh, her father. The present appellant is the son of Mandhatta Singh. He brought a Suit for a declaration that the deed of gift was void. That suit was compromised. The compromise was to the effect that the deed of gift should be declared invalid, but that Mt. Taluqdei should be given land amounting to 75 bighas out of the property comprised in the deed of gift, and also out of other property. The compromise provided for a Commissioner, one Babu Sheo Gopal, allocating specific plots to the lady. On this compromise being filed a preliminary decree was drawn up stating the terms of the compromise, and directing the person named to select the plots. After he had selected the plots, a further and final decree was passed awarding the lady Mt. Taluqdei the specific plots. The decree ran in the following terms:

And in accordance with the conditions entered in the report of the Commissioner, the Defendant No. 1 be given possession over these plots.

2. The lady put in an application for execution of this decree by delivery of possession. An ex-parte order was passed directing that possession should be given to her and possession was in fact given be her. The present appellant was, however, given notice by the Court, and, in response to this notice, he appeared in Court and objected to the delivery of possession being given, on the ground that the decree should not have incorporated any order for the delivery of land not comprised in the deed of gift" which formed the subject-matter of the suit.

3. The Subordinate Judge has written a, lengthy judgment considering the law upon the subject. We do not consider it necessary to refer to any decision; except that of Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zemindari Co., [1920] 47 Cal.485. On pages 497 and 496 their Lordships of the-Privy Council drew attention to the terms of Section 375 of the Civil P.C. (Act 14 of 1882) which have been replaced by Order 23, Rule 3 (Act 5 of 1908). Their Lordships pointed out that it was not proper for a Court to allow the operative part of a decree to go beyond the actual subject-matter of the existing litigation, and they added that it might be that a decree which infringed this rule was incapable of being executed outside the lands of the suit.

4. We do not consider that this last remark throws any doubt on the well established view that parties in an execution case cannot call in question the validity of a decree as actually framed or impugn the jurisdiction of the Court that framed it.

5. An attempt has been made by the appellant's counsel to construe the final decree of with execution has been allowed as merely a declaratory decree in regard to the land which was hot comprised in the deed of gift called in question in the suit. The language, however, of this final decree appears to us to be plain, and to direct that possession should be given. It cannot be construed as merely declaring title on the basis of the compromise. It is not open to a party to an execution case to go behind the plain and obvious meaning of a decree For the above reasons we dismiss this appeal with costs.