Independent possession defeats execution under a compromise decree when the occupant can resist under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

A person in independent possession of property is not displaced by a compromise decree passed against another occupant. Where possession is shown to be held in his own right, he may resist execution under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and seek protection in execution proceedings. Admissions by co-owners regarding tenancy and possession can support such a finding. On these facts, the conclusion that the occupant was merely a licensee under the judgment-debtor was unsustainable, and he was entitled to maintain possession and obstruct execution in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was bound by the compromise decree obtained against another occupant and whether he could resist execution by asserting his independent possession under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The compromise decree could not displace the appellant if he was independently in possession of the premises. Admissions made by co-owners regarding the appellant's tenancy and possession were binding on them and supported the finding that the appellant held the premises in his own right. Once such possession was established, he was entitled to obstruct execution and to seek protection in execution proceedings. The finding that he was merely a licensee under the judgment-debtor was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The appellant was not bound to suffer eviction under the compromise decree except in accordance with law, and he was entitled to resist execution and maintain his possession.

Ratio Decidendi: A person in independent possession of property is not bound by a compromise decree passed against another, and may resist execution under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 if his possession is established.

---