The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the judgment of the Court (1), which is as follows:—
In these cases two widows, Tripoora Soonderee and Hurro Soouderee, obtained a decree for money against the judgment-debtor, appellant, before us. There was a joint decree passed in favour of these widows. Tripoora Soouderee applied to the lower Court under section 207 to execute the whole decree upon the ground that her co-judgment creditor, Hurro Soonderee, was unwilling to join her in executing the decree. In this application Tripoora Soonderee admits that the share of Hurro Soonderee is one-half. The judgment-debtor resisted this application for execution on the ground that almost the whole of the money due under the decree had been paid to Hurro Soonderee, and Hurro Soonderee supports that statement of the judgment-debtor; but both the Courts below have found upon the evidence that it is not correct, and that in point of fact nothing has beet paid by the judgment-debtor to Hurro Soonderee. Upon this finding of fact, the Courts below have directed that Tripoon Soonderee should be allowed to execute the whole of the decree against the judgment-debtor, and that, on the money being realized, orders would be passed for the protection of the interest of the other judgment-creditor. Against this order the judgment-debtor has appealed. Her contention is, that at any rate, according to the admission of Tripoora Soonderee, her share is only one-half in the decree; and as Hurro Soonderee admits the payment of more than the half share of this decree, the lower Courts ought not to have allowed Tripoora Soonderee to execute the decree for the whole amount, but should only law allowed her to execute the decree for the balance; namely, one-half share of the decree, considering that the other half shire has already been paid.
We think that this contention is correct.
Under section 207 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court, allowing one of the joint decree-holders to execute the whole decree, is directed to protect the interests of the other judgment creditors. In this case Tripoora Soonderee admits that her share is only one-half, and Hurro Soonderee also admits that she has received from the judgment-debtor more than the half shares to which, according to the admission of Tripoora Soonderee, she was entitled. Under these circumstances, it was not necessary to pass any orders for the protection of the interests of the other decree-holder, and upon the admissions of Tripoora Soonderee that the share of Hurro Soonderee in the decree was one-half and of Hurro Soonderee that she has already received more that half share, the lower Court should have allowed the ??? to be executed in accordance with these admissions, ??? the other half share as admittedly paid. We, therefore, ??? the decree accordingly.
As regards costs, it seems to us that in the Court below the decree-holder, Tripoora Soouderee, never contended that her share was more than one-half, and as the judgment-debtor objected on the ground that the decree could not be executed at all, we think that the judgment-debtor should pay the costs of the decree-holder in this Court as well as in the Courts below.