Uncertified decree adjustment cannot be recognised in execution; an alleged licence arrangement does not extinguish an eviction decree.

Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the executing court to decide questions of execution, discharge and satisfaction, but Order XXI Rule 2 imposes a specific bar on recognising any payment or adjustment of a decree that has not been certified or recorded. An alleged post-decree arrangement said to have substituted a licence or otherwise satisfied an eviction decree could not be enforced in execution because it was neither certified nor recorded, and a licence did not, on the pleaded facts, amount to a fresh lease or surrender of rights under the decree. The statutory restriction prevailed, so the eviction decree remained executable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an alleged post-decree arrangement said to have adjusted or satisfied an eviction decree could be recognised in execution despite not being certified or recorded under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the creation of a licence in favour of the judgment-debtor had the effect of extinguishing the decree.

Analysis: Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers jurisdiction on the executing court to determine questions relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of a decree, but Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 operates as a special provision governing payment out of court or adjustment of a decree by compromise or otherwise. The provisions must be read harmoniously, and the general power under Section 47 yields to the specific restriction in Order XXI Rule 2(3), which bars recognition of any uncertified or unrecorded payment or adjustment. On the facts pleaded, even assuming delivery of possession to the attorney and a subsequent permissive occupation as a licencee, the arrangement did not amount to a fresh lease or to surrender of the rights under the eviction decree; the decisive test is the intention of the parties, and a licence does not extinguish the decree in the manner a fresh lease might. Since the alleged adjustment was neither certified nor recorded, the executing court could not give it effect.

Conclusion: The unrecorded arrangement could not be recognised in execution, and the eviction decree remained executable. The objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The decree-holder was entitled to execute the eviction decree and obtain possession, as the alleged post-decree adjustment did not displace the statutory bar against recognising an uncertified compromise or adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment or adjustment of a decree that is required to be certified or recorded under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be recognised by the executing court if it remains uncertified or unrecorded, even though questions of execution may otherwise fall within Section 47.

---