1. The second respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 6 of 1941 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, against the appellant and his father on 23rd July, 1941. Some time subsequent to the decree the appellant's father died. In August, 1941, there was an agreement between the decree-holder and the appellant that the decree debt might be discharged in two instatements. On 12th June, 1942, the first instatement was paid but the second instatement was not paid on the due date. On 24th August, 1943, a sum of Rs. 600 was paid.
2. On 27th March, 1945, the minor son of the second respondent (who is the first respondent before us) filed E.P. No. 43 of 1945 for realising the balance due under the decree. He based his claim on a registered deed of partition dated 28th December, 1944, entered into between his father, the second respondent, and himself, represented by his next friend, under which the decree debt in question was allotted to him. The appellant objected to the execution on the ground that he had paid the balance due under the decree on 28th June, 1944, to the second respondent and that the second respondent passed him a receipt Ex. D-2 in full satisfaction of the decree debt. The second respondent himself followed by filing a memorandum of full satisfaction of the decree on 7th August, 1945.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge found that no money was really paid on 28th June, 1944, as alleged by the original decree-holder and that Ex. D-2 was brought into existence to defraud the petitioner. He therefore allowed the execution to proceed. The judgment-debtor appeals.
4. The learned advocate for the appellant attempted to challenge the findings of fact that Ex. D-2 was ante-dated and that no money was really paid but we are convinced that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge was the only conclusion in the circumstances.
5. The next contention of the appellant was that even if no money had been paid and the decree had not really been satisfied, nevertheless as the decree-holder filed the memorandum of full satisfaction the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with execution. He relied on a decision of Walsh, J., in Kadir Meera Saheb Taraganar v. Pir Mohamed Taraganar : AIR1933Mad523 , but the facts in that case differ from the facts in the present case. In that case, after the decree-holder had put in an application stating that the decree amount had been paid in full and that satisfaction might be entered, an agent of his purporting to act under a Power of attorney in his favour assigned the decree to a third party who sought to be brought on record as the assignee decree-holder and to be permitted to execute the decree. The learned Judge held that if the decree-holder had intimated to the Court that the decree had been satisfied it was not open to the Court to go into the question whether the report of satisfaction was intended to defraud or defeat the rights of some third party who was not before the Court. In the present case the first respondent, that is, the minor son obtained the right to the decree on 28th December, 1944. If the decree had been really satisfied before that date then certainly nothing passed to the first respondent under the partition deed but if as has been found in this case the decree had not really been satisfied by payment on 28th December, 1944, the original decree-holder ceased to have any interest in the decree which interest passed to the minor, the first respondent. It is clear that any memorandum of full satisfaction filed on a date subsequent to the filing of E.P. No. 43 of 1945 would not avail the appellant. The second respondent had no locus stand to file the memorandum of full satisfaction on 6th August, 1945. The learned Subordinate Judge was right in allowing the execution. The appeal is dismissed with costs of the first respondent.