ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section

115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 11.02.2020 dismissing E.A.No.448 of 2019 in E.P.No.72 of 2019 in O.S.No.286 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civi l Judge, Kakinada, filed under Section 47 of CPC by the J.Dr. to hold that the decree dated 20.07.2000 in O.S.No.286 of 1993 on its file is illegal and unconscionable and has become inoperative and un-executable and thus, discharged.

2. Heard Sri Akurathi Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:-

The petitioner/J.Dr is the absolute owner of Ac.1-75 cents land in survey No.99(P), 30th revenue ward, 70th block, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada municipality by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 21.06.1978. The petitioner mortgaged the property to Chigurupati Veera Venkata Satyanarayana for Rs.5000/- under a registered mortgage deed dated 15.09.1983. The respondents/D.Hrs filed O.S.No.286 of 1993 for permanent injunction against the petitioner/D1 from executing any gift deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 - Kakinada municipality in respect of the said property contending that the petitioner agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to them under a possessory agreement of sale dated 02.09.1985 for Rs.2,60,000/-, out which they paid advance of Rs.1,60,000/- and further agreed to discharge the mortgage debt due under deed dated 15.09.1983. The suit in O.S.No.286 of 1993 ended in compromise with D1 and accordingly, a decree was passed on 20.07.2000 against D1 and whereas the suit against D.2 and D3 was dismissed as not pressed. As the petitioner admitted that the respondents were in possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to the possessory agreement of sale dated 02.09.1985, the petitioner consented for grant of injunction against her in respect of Ac.0-87 ½ cents of land and that the respondents and the petitioner agreed to discharge the mortgage debt due under the deed dated 15.09.1983. Though the decree was passed long back, the respondents/D.Hr did not choose to discharge the debt under the mortgage deed as agreed, but the petitioner anyhow discharged the same and received the original mortgage deed from him as a voucher. The decree becomes executable on compliance of its terms, but failure to comply with the terms would make the decree unexecutable. As such, since the respondents did not fulfill the terms of the contract (compromise), they have no right to get the decree executed. The suit is filed for permanent injunction against the petitioners restraining from making a gift on part of suit schedule property to D2 and D3. The compromise decree is that the petitioner agreed for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of 87 ½ cents of land shown in the decree schedule. Twisting the terms of the decree, the respondents/D.Hrs filed E.P. for arrest of the petitioner/J.Dr with the aid of police alleging that she is interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. There is no clause in the compromise decree that the petitioner is restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the alleged possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The terms of the decree cannot be interpreted to mean that the petitioner is restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with their alleged possession of the schedule property perennially, particularly as the suit was not filed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the alleged possession. Thus, the execution petition for arrest of the petitioner with or without police aid is not maintainable. Since the mortgage debt agreed to be discharged was not discharged, the transfer of property under the alleged possessory agreement of sale cannot be deemed to be one for consideration as required under Section