Adapa Papamma And Anr. vs Darbha Venkayya And Ors. on 29 March, 1935
Taking hold of the latter half of the second sentence in this passage, the learned advocate for the respondent urges that if the agreement had the effect of rendering the decree wholly in-executable against all the defendants and not merely as against one or some of them, the agreement would hit at the decree itself and not merely bar its execution. We are not satisfied that any such distinction in the principle to be applied was in the mind of the learned Judges at all. We see little difference between a case where the decree is rendered inexecutable against some only of the defendants or against some only of the properties and the case where a decree is rendered inexecutable against all the defendants or all the properties. Our attention was also called to another circumstance, namely, (that the decision of the Full Bench in Papamma v. Venkayya (1935) 69 M.L.J. 451 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 994 (F.B.). had reference to an agreement between the parties after the institution of the suit and not one as in the present case entered into before suit.