Das, J.:— This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge of Saran, dated the 25th August, 1924, by which he refused an application by one of the decree-holders under the provision of O. 21, R. 2, paragraph 1.
2. Sona Koer and Subhadra Koer recovered a decree for costs as against ??? appellant. The decree-holders took ??? execution. An application was thereupon presented on behalf of the judgment-debtor apparently under the provision of O. 21, R. 2, paragraph 2 of the Code. He alleged that he had paid the entire decretal amount to Sona Koer and the applied that the payment be certified. His application was supported by a petition of Sona Koer; but it appears that ??? Court of first instance thought that ??? application was not a bona fide one ??? dismissed it on the 10th of May ??? On the 5th June, 1924 the judgment debtor preferred an appeal to the Court ??? the District Judge of Saran. On the 28th June, 1924 Sona Koer herself presented an application which has given rise ??? these proceedings by which she certified the payment alleged to have been made ??? her and asked the Court to record ??? payment. She gave evidence in supported of her application and the learned Munsit accepting her story, allowed her petition and dismissed the execution case on full satisfaction.
3. Thereupon Subhadra Koer appealed to the District Judge of Saran and the learned Judge has taken the view first that the order of the 10th May 192 operated as res judicata thereby potting an effectual bar on the right of the Court to give any effective relief to the judgment-debtor; and secondly that it was ??? open to a joint decree-holder to give valid discharge to the judgment-debtors. In these circumstances he allowed the appeal and dismissed the application of Sona Koer. The judgment-debtor being the party aggrieved, now appeals to this Court.
4. In my opinion the order of the 10th May, 1924 does not operate as res judicata. That order was passed on the application of the judgment-debtor apparently under O. 21, R. 2, paragraph 2 of the CPC. There was nothing to prevent the decree-holders themselves from certifying the payment to the Court, and this is exactly what was done by Sona Koer on the 28th June, 1924.
5. In regard to the other question raised ??? the learned District Judge, I entirely agree with his view that it is not open to one of two joint holders of a decree to certify satisfaction of the whole decree so ??? to bind the other decree-holder. It ??? not necessary for me to deal with ??? is point at length; it is sufficient for ??? to refer to Tamman Singh v. Lachhmin ???(1) and Umrao Beg v. Mukhtar ???(2). But at the same time, I am ??? opinion that a joint decree-holder may certify satisfaction in respect of his own interest therein. This point is not dealt with in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. There is no injustice in passing an order of this nature as Sona Kuer is bound by her own admission ??? she has received the entire decretal ??? Subhadra Koer is only entitled ??? share of the decretal amount and ??? is entitled to execute her decree to ??? extent. There is no reason to put ??? in a better position than that. This ??? is supported by the decisions to ??? I have referred.
6. The result is that we vary the order ??? by the Court below by directing ??? at the payment made to Sona Kuer be ??? and that Subhadra Koer be ??? to execute the decree to the ??? of her half-share therein.
7. There will be no order for costs.
8. Adami, J.:— I agree.
9. Order varied.