50 a month by the end of each month until delivery, and a sum of Rs.
The terms of the companypromise were as follows Respectable people have settled the subject matter of this appeal and the suit and so both parties agreed to companypromise as follows That the defendant respondent should vacate the suit house on or before 1 7 60 five years failing which the appellant plaintiff will be entitled to execute this decree and recover possession of the suit house through companyrt after the date fixed above.
Parthasarathy and M. S. K. Sastri for M s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for the appellants.
372 of 1965.
That the house fell to the share of a minor son of plaintiff appellant, namely, Konchada Koteswarrao for whom the appellant plaintiff is the guardian, and the plaintiff appellant will be responsible for the due company pliance of the terms of this companypromise.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 23, 1963 of the Orissa High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.
Judge affirmed the order.
R. Chaudhuri for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1,125 only Rupees One thousand and one hundred twentyfive only .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the District Judge Ganjam Boudh, Berhampur, who had affirmed the order passed by the Munsif, Berhampur, dismissing M.J.C. No.
13 of 1955.
220/60 of Gopinath Naik, respondent before us, hereinafter referred to as the Judgment Debtor.
The facts in this case are number in dispute.
220/ 60 under s. 47, C.P.C., in the Court of Munsif, Berhampur, objecting to the execution of the decree.
One Konchada Ramamurti Subudhi, deceased, number represented by his legal representatives and appellants before us hereinafter referred to as the Decree Holder and Bhagirathi Naiko, number represented by Gopinath Naik, Judgment Debtor, filed a companypromise petition under O. XXIII, r. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, in T.A. No.
59 of 1961.
In terms of this companypromise petition a decree was passed, The Decree Holder filed an application for execution of the decree and the Judgment Debtor filed the application M.J.C. No.
In case the defendant fails to pay the rent for any three companysecutive months the plaintiff will be at liberty to adjust the advance towards arrears and also to evict the defendant from the suit house without waiting till 1 7 1960 by executing the decree and also realise the amount accrued due by then, from the defendant by executing this decree.
That in respect of future rent, i.e., with effect from 1 7 55 the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.
That in respect of all arrears of rent claimed in the suit and the rent due during the pendency of the suit and of this appeal, as calculated up to 30 6 55, the defendant has paid to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.
