HAJI T. J. ABDUL SHAKOOR AND OTHERS versus BIJAY KUMAR KAPUR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 46 · Decided: 14-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
Maulud Ahmad 
v. 
Stale of U. P. 
Sub~a Rao, J. 
1962 
November, 14, 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
approached any superior officer in the Police Depart-
ment and that the appellant had manipulated the 
records on the dictation of such an officer. This is 
a pure surmise based upon an observation made by 
the learned Judge of the High Court in the judgment. 
. There is nothing improbable in Chauhan or some 
other person interested in him directly approaching 
the appellant and the appellant acting in the manner 
he did for consideration or otherwise. If a police 
officer manipulates the record such as police diary 
etc., it will be the end of honest criminal investigation 
in our country. Such offences shall receive deterrent 
punishment. The punishment awarded errs more on 
the side of leniency than otherwise. 
For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the 
decision of the High Court is correct. The appeal 
fails and is dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
HAJI T. J. ABDUL SHAKOOR AND OTHERS 
v. 
BIJAY KUMAR KAPUR AND OTHERS 
(S. J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR and J. R. M~DHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Compromise 
Decree--Oanstructinn ~·t)ornpromise provid-
ing sale of mart.gaged properties-Executi(J,, 11•·oceedings-Main-
tainability-Oode of Civil Procedure, 
li!Uc (Act 5 of 1908), 
0. 23, r.3 
A suit instituted by the respondents for the recovery of 
• 
" 
money due under a simple mortgage from the appellants was 
'-- ·
compromised by the parties under a memo dated September 30, 
1955, and the court passed a decree as per the terms of the 
compromise. By cl. I of the memo the defendants agreed to a 
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
47 
decree being passed as prayed for in the suit, while cl. 2 recited: 
"That the mortgaged properties are hereby sold f0 r the amount 
of the decree in full satisfaction thereof. The defendants will 
execute a regular sale and within ten days from this date." The 
appellants did not comply with the terms of cl. 2 and on 
October 31, 1955, the respondents made an application before 
the court praying that the appellants might be directed to execute 
a sale. deed as per the terms of the compromise. The appellants 
pleaded that the relief sought by the respondents could not be 
had in execution proceedings but only by a separate suit, on 
the grounds, inter alia, that the same did not relate to the suit 
within 0. 23, r. 3, of the Code of. Civil Procedure, and that, 
in any case, on a proper construction of the compromise the 
consideration therefore was not the actual execution of the 
conveyance by the judgment debtor but me1cly the agreement 
to execute such a conveyance, 
Held: (l) that the terms of the compromise related to 
the suit .inasmuch as the property which was to be conveyed 
consisted entirely of the property included in the mortgage. 
(2) 
that on the true construction of the compromise, 
though els. 2 to 6 might constitute an integrated scheme for 
adjusting the rights of parties, a mere agreement to convey 
contained in cl. 2 by itself did not amount to a satisfaction of 
the decree and that the consideration for the compromise was 
the execution of a conveyance. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
"· 
No. 176of1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
June 2, 1958, of the Mysore High Court in R. A. 
No. 268 of 1957. 
S. K. Javali, K. P. Bhat and B. R. L. Iyengar, 
for the appellants. 
S. K. Venkataranga lyengFJr and R. Gopala· 
krishnan, for the respondents. 
1962. November 14. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
A:YYANOAR, J.-On March 27, 1954, the three 
Kapurs-who are the respondents before us-filed 
original Suit No. 29 of 1954 before the District 
1962 
H~i T. J. Abdul 
Shako~r 
1962 
lloji T. J .• 1bdul 
~hakoor 
v. 
OiJa.1J1:um.z.r Kupar 
A_)'._)'angar, J. 
48 
SUPREME COURTREPORTS[I963] SUPP. 
Judge, Bangalore, against the 3 appellants who are 
brothers, for the recovery of over Rs. 50,000/- and 
subsequent interest and costs due on a simple mortgage. 
Before the suit came on for trial the parties filed a 
memo of compromise dated September 30, 1955, and 
they prayed that the suit may be decreed in terms 
thereof. The Court accepted the application and 
passed a decree as prayed for, the order reading : 
"It is ordered and decreed that the plaintiff's 
suit be and the same is hereby decreed as per 
terms of the compromise, the copy of which is 
hereunto annexed". 
·" 
The terms of the Razinama ran as follows : 
"l. That the defen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.