- (1.) THESE are five connected execution first appeals. All the five appeals have been preferred by the decree-holders and the judgment-debtors are the respondents in all the five appeals. The point for determination in these appeals is the same. Consequently we propose to decide all the appeals by this common judgment.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals briefly put are these : On 22-12-1932, a decree was passed on a compromise in favour of the appellants, Ahmadi Begam and Muzaffar Husain against six judgment-debtors namely, 1, Rup Kuer, 2. Kamta Prasad, 3. Ambika Prasad, 4. Sunder Lal 5. Kashi Prasad and 6. Beni Madho. The compromise decree was in respect of a debt due under mortgage deed dated 16-9-1919. The main terms of the compromise decree were (1)that the entire money would be payable in twelve equal instalments--the instalments were to be paid annually, the first being payable in December 1933. The second term of the compromise was that in default of two consecutive instalments the decree-holders would be entitled to get the proprietary possession over the property in execution of the decree. The first instalment apparently was paid in time but there was a default in respect of the second instalment. Consequently the decree-holders put their decree into execution in order to obtain possession over the property.
(3.) WHILE this second execution application was pending, a kind of second compromise was entered into and this was done on 25-7-1935. This compromise was in the nature of an extension of time granted to the judgment-debtors to make the payment which they had failed to make under the terms of the first compromise. By this compromise time for the payment of the second instalment in respect of which there had been a delay was extended up to 21-12-1935, and it was also provided for, that in the event of this instalment not being paid within that time, the decree-holders were to be entitled to get proprietary possession.;