O'Kinealy and Rampini, JJ.
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 1st August 1896; and the question we have to determine is whether a sum paid under an agreement void under Section 257A of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be acknowledged or recognised in execution of a decree under Section 258, unless it has been certified within the proper time.
2. Section 257A refers to two kinds of agreement, (1st) 'agreements to give time for the satisfaction of a judgment-debt,' and (2ndly) 'agreements for the satisfaction of a judgment-debt.' If the Court does not sanction them they are void. If the Court sanctions them they may be carried out in execution. For the section states that 'any sum paid in contravention of the provisions of this section,' that is any sums paid under agreements void, 'shall be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment-debt; and the surplus, if any, shall be recoverable by the judgment-debtor.'
3. The agreement in this case is an agreement between the parties, and its force depends upon the sanction of the Court. It was not sanctioned and is void.
4. Section 258 says: 'If any money payable under a decree is paid out of Court, or the decree is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, or if any payment is made in pursuance of an agreement of the nature mentioned in Section 257A, the decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree.' Then the section goes on to say that, 'unless such payment or adjustment has been certified as aforesaid, it shall not be recognised as a, payment or adjustment of the decree by the Court executing the decree.'
5. The learned Advocate-General argues that the Judge in the Court below was right in saying that the agreement referred to in Section 258 is a valid agreement; 'but the section itself makes no reference to validity, and Section 257A provides for agreements null and void. We are unable therefore to agree with the construction placed upon Section 258. The case of Gajapati Narayana Devu V. Chath Venkataramanaya, (1890) 1 Mad. Law Journal, 332, cited to us seems to militate against the reasons given in the decision of the case of Chedumbara Pillai v. Ratna Ammal (1881) I.L.R. 3 Mad. 113.
6. We think the view taken by the Court below is wrong, and we set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge with costs in both Courts, and direct that the money allowed by him under that agreement be not allowed in execution of the decree.