Madras High Court
Bairagulu And Anr. vs Bapanna on 3 February, 1892
Equivalent citations: (1892)ILR 15MAD302
JUDGMENT
1. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that the matter in question, viz., the satisfaction of the decree, is a matter which should be dealt with by the Court in execution of the decree, and not by a separate suit.
2. It is clear that it is of this nature.
3. The effect of Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code is only to exclude proof of an uncertified agreement in execution proceedings. It does not limit the operation of Section 244. The case of Viraraghava v. Subbakka I.L.R. 5 Mad., 397 is cited by the appellants' pleader. This case shows that an action for the breach of the contract to certify adjustment of the decree may be brought; but it is not authority for the position that a suit to declare that a decree has been satisfied will lie. The appeal is dismissed with costs.