JUDGMENT
Jwala Prasad, J.
1. This is an appeal by the transferee of a decree for Rs. 2,200 against certain judgment-debtors including the respondents in this case. The decree was transferred in favour of the appellant on 27th August 1905. On December 2nd, 1905, the decree-holder filed a petition of satisfaction to the extent of Rs. 275 out of the decretal amount as having been received from the respondents. In that petition the decree-holder absolved the respondents from the liability of the decree. The payment of the aforesaid Rs. 275 as well as the discharge of the respondents were duly recorded by the Court under Order XXI, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant executed the decree, ignoring the adjustment and the discharge mentioned above. The judgment-debtors-respondents objected to the execution of the decree as against them. The lower Appellate Court has upheld their objection and has disallowed the execution of the decree against them. The transferee of the decree has appealed to this Court
2. It is contended on behalf of the transferee that the release of the respondents from the liability of the decree amounts to varying the terms of the decree and, is invalid in law. No authority, directly applicable to this contention of the appellant has been shown to us. The.two authorities reported as Kelu Nair v. Meenakshi 21 Ind. Cas 639 : 25 M.L.J. 686 : 14 M.L.T. 574. and Ladd Govindoss v. Ramdass Vishnadoss 28 Ind. Cas. 376 : 17 M.L.T. 222 : (1915) M.W.N. 225 do not apply at all to the facts of this case. In the latter case facts even have not been fully stated. In my opinion the terms of the decree have not in any way been altered by the petition of satisfaction referred to above, nor does the petition contravene any provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion tinder Order XXI, Rule 2, the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor can very well adjust their respective rights and liabilities in regard to the decree in any manner agreed upon by them, including the discharge of the judgment-debtor.
3. The learned Vakil for the appellant then contended that it is not competent for the decree-holder to release some of the judgment-debtors from the liabiliiy of the decree, which was against all the judgment-debtors jointly including the judgment-debtors released. There is nothing in Order XXI, Rule 2, or any other provision of the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent the release by the decree holder of some of the judgment-debtors from the liability under the decree. The decree is being executed by the assignee of the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors can very well rely upon the release and discharge given by the decree-holder. The question raised by the appellant is one that really concerns the rights and obligations of the judgment-debtors inter se. I, therefore, agree with the view of the Court below and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Chapman, J.
4. I agree.