Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. If we carefully examine the terms of the compromise decree, it would appear that the judgment-debtor was given an option to purchase the house in suit for a consideration of Rs. 800/-, failing which he was liable to be evicted. It is significant that the decree does not say in clear terms that in the event of any default in payment, the decree-holder will be entitled to obtain possession of the house by executing the decree. It merely says that the judgment-debtor would be liable to be ejected. It is clear that the first part of the decree relating to execution of the sale-deed by the decree-holder on payment of Rs. 800/- within the time stipulated in the decree was not executable. It was a matter extraneous to the suit and if the decree-holder failed to execute the sale-deed, the judgment-debtor would have been required to file a suit for enforcing the terms relating to execution of the sale-deed. This position was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. He, however, urged that the decree contemplated that in the event of default in payment, the judgment-debtor would be ejected in execution proceedings. But the words "liable to be ejected" do not bear out this intention. It merely suggests that a liability was created, which could be enforced separately. Such a construction is re-enforced by another consideration.

13. It is, therefore, clear that the decree in question cannot be executed as a decree for ejectment by the decree-holders. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider whether some of the clauses in the decree are of penal nature and the judgment-debtor can claim relief in respect thereof.

14. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the execution application in so far as it relates to ejectment of the judgment-debtor shall stand dismissed. I make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.