B.K.Rathi, J. - (1.) Suit No. 501 of 1995 was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the revisionist and other respondents for several reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions. The suit was decided between the revisionist and respondent No. 1 on 6.9.1996 on the basis of the compromise dated 4.9.1996. Annexure-2 to the affidavit. The order of the Civil Judge deciding the suit in terms of the compromises is Annexure-3 to the affidavit. The respondent No. 1 moved an application for the execution of decree for recovery of money in which the revisionist filed objections under Section 47, C.P.C. The objections have been rejected by the impugned order dated 21.7.1997 by Civil Judge, Allahabad. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior advocate for the revisionist and Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(3.) Several legal pleas have been raised by Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the revisionist and it is contended that the decree is not executable. The learned counsel has referred to the allegations of the plaint and the compromise decree and it is contended that property has been transferred by compromise decree thereby the payment of court fee and the stamp duty has been evaded : that therefore, this compromise decree is illegal and cannot be enforced and is also against the provisions of Section 17 (2) (6) of the Indian Registration Act. The compromise is also against the public policy and, therefore, is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.;