- (1.) THIS is judgment-debtor's appeal. Maharaj Singh and others filed a suit No. 139 of 1944 and obtained a decree for over Rs. 4,000/- against the appellant Balwant Singh. On 21-1-1948, maharaj Singh applied for execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor, Balwant Singh, raised an objection that the whole decree had been satisfied. This objection has been overruled by the lower Courts except to this extent that the amount due to one Yad Ram was allowed to be deducted and the decree was held to be executable for the balance. It is against this order that this execution Second Appeal was filed.
(2.) YAD Ram had four revenue decrees for small amounts, the total of which was Rs. 185/- odd. In execution of those decrees it is said that Yad Ram had attached the decree in Suit No. 139 of 1944. Neither the attachment order nor the record of the revenue court has been summoned here, so we do not know the date on which such an attachment was made, taut we may assume that the decree in Suit No. 139 of 1944 was attached.
(3.) IT is said that after having attached the decree in Suit No. 139 of 1944 Yad Ram applied for execution of that decree. The record of those proceedings has also not been summoned to this court and, therefore, it is not possible for us to check up the statement of facts given by learned counsel. Learned counsel has, however, stated that in this application for execution Yad Ram prayed that the decree in Suit No. 139 of 1944 be executed, certain moveable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor, Balwant Singh, be sold and the sum of Rs. 185/- odd due to Yad Ram be realised so that his decrees may be satisfied. The details of the amounts due under the four decrees were given in the remarks column and the prayer has been read out by learned counsel from his brief. On 21-10-1946, Yad Ram proceeded along with the Amin to have the property attached and then he made a statement to the Amin to the following effect : "kul matalba munderje parwana kurki bad minhai fees kurki Balwant Singh madyun decree se vasul paye lihaza kurki karana manzur nahi hai. " neither the statement nor the Amin's report on the basis thereof, nor the parwana kurki are before us, but it is urged by learned counsel that these words mean that Yad Ram had received the total amount of Rs. 4,000/- odd due under the decree in Suit No. 139 of 1944. The lower Courts have not accepted this contention and we have no reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the lower Courts. Yad Ram was interested only in his sum of Rs. 185/odd and he wanted to realise that amount by execution of the decree in Suit No, 139 of 1944 and when he said "kul matalba munderje parwana" it does not necessarily mean that he meant any-thing more than the amount due to him. However, on the basis of this statement the Amin made a report that Yad Ram had said that the amount mentioned in the 'parwana' had been received and on 2-11-1946, the learned Judge struck off the execution application filed by Yad ram in full satisfaction.;