- (1.)How should a deed or a compromise decree be interpreted? Under what circumstances, does a decree become inexecutable? These are few questions involved in this case.
FACTS

(2.)Sri Vijai Kumar Dubey (the respondent) is an Engineer and is working with a private company. Smt. Manju Lata Sharma (the appellant) is a Lecturer in the Government Degree College, Anwalkhera, Agra. They were married on 29.6.1990. The marriage fell apart as soon as they were married. The husband filed a divorce petition on 19.3.1991 on the ground of cruelty, adultery and fraud under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act). He further prayed for return of jewellery worth more than three lacs. The appellant filed her written statement denying plaint allegations. She also gave birth to a daughter during pendency of divorce petition on 5.5.1991. This case was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 28.10.1996. The appellant filed an application to recall this order. It was dismissed on 21.11.1996 and divorce petition was decreed ex-parte the same day. The relief for return of jewellery or its value in terms of money was denied.
(3.)The appellant filed an appeal before this Court. There was reconciliation between the parties and a compromise application was filed. The Court passed a compromise decree on 5.12.1997, on its basis. Broadly under the compromise Rs. 5 lacs were to be given by the respondent in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 3 lacs was to be given within two months from the date of the decree and the second instalment of Rs. 2 lacs was to be given by 30th of September, 1999. In case of default it was to incur 18% interest. This amount was to be kept in the joint account of the appellant and the minor daughter with liberty to the appellant to withdraw the amount. The appellant was required to withdraw all civil and criminal cases against the husband and his family members within a week, All allegations against each other were also withdrawn and struck out.