JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - This is a judgment-debtor's appeal from an order of the Additional District Judge, Ganjam-Nayagarh, Berhampur, confirming an order of the Munsif, Berhampur, in an application on behalf of the decree-holders in Execution Proceedings No. 107 of 1953 to realise the decretal amount by arrest under order 21, Rule 37 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The matter arose in these circumstances the mortgage which was the subject-matter of these proceedings there were several mortgagors who had mortgaged certain lands with an area of 20 acres of land (roughly stated) in favour of the sole mortgagee who was the Defendant No. 1 in the suit hereinafter mentioned. It appears that subsequently the equity of redemption of some of the mortgagors was sold away to the Plaintiff's Nos. 1 and 2' in the suit, in 1946, a suit for redemption of the mortgage was filed, the Plaintiffs in that suit were the Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 being the purchasers of the equity of redemption of some of the mortgagors. The Plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 8 were the remaining mortgagors. The Defendant were five the Defendant No. 1 being the sole mortgagee and the Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were the remaining mortgagors who were proforma Defendants by reason of their not having joined in the suit for redemption. On May, 4, 1950 a final decree was passed for redemption, By that decree, the Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2; being the purchasers of the equity of redemption of some of the mortgagors as aforesaid, were to recover possession of the suit mortgaged land either from the 1st Defendant-mortgagee or from the Receiver who was appointed in that suit, It was further ordered by the said decree that the 1st Defendant-mortgagee was to pay the Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 8 and the Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 (all being mortgagors In respect of the said mortgage) the sum of Rs. 14,278-15-4 on account of mesne profits recovered from the land. In 1950, the Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 (being some of the mortgagors as aforesaid) received a sum of Rs. 1 to 8 and the Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 (all being mortgagors In respect of the said mortgage) the sum of Rs. 14,278-15-4 on account of mesne profits recovered from the land. In 1950, the Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 (being some of the mortgagors as aforesaid) received a sum of Rs. 4000/- from the mortgagee-Defendant No. 1 and gave a valid discharge after receiving payment from the sole mortgagee-Defendant No. I. Then by an order dated April 9,1952 being Order no, 136 in M.J.C. No. 178 of 1950 made by the learned Munsif, Berhampur, payment of the said sum of Rs. 4,000/- was certified as having been in full satisfaction of the entire decree under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant portion of the said order, so far as relevant for the present purpose is set out as follows: ...it is evident that some or the Plaintiff-Respondents executed an agreement in favour of the actual mortgagees and absolved them altogether from the liability under the decree in the said suit. Similarly the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 executed a receipt in their favour in full discharge or the decree. But in all these transactions the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 2 was not a party.... Thus the adjustment cannot be certified as valid discharge of the decree against the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 2. The decree is recorded as adjusted, so far as the interest of the other Plaintiff-Respondents are concerned. The petition is therefore allowed against the Plaintiff-Respondents Nos. 1, 3 to 7 and dismissed against the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 2. 3. On May 1, 1953 the said Plaintiff No. 2 filed an execution case being E.P. No. 107 of 1953 to realise from the mortgagee Defendant No. 1 the entire decretal amount presumably ignoring the payment of Rs. 4000/- which as received in full satisfaction of the decree "so far as the interests of the other Plaintiff-Respondents are concerned" as aforesaid. On April 24, 1954 the learned Munsif in the said Execution case made an order allowing the decree-holder's application for execution of the entire decree, from that order, there was an appeal field to the learned, Additional District Judge being Misc. Case No. 455. On April 24, 1954 the learned Munsif in the said Execution case made an order allowing the decree-holder's application for execution of the entire decree, from that order, there was an appeal field to the learned, Additional District Judge being Misc. Case No. 455. In appeal before, the learned Additional District Judge, who upheld the learned Munsif's said order, it was contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the execution by the decree-holder Plaintiff No. 2 alone was not maintainable for failure of compliance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 15, CPC as it was not sought to be executed on behalf of all the decree-holders and for their benefit. Secondly, it was contended that the decree must be deemed to have been satisfied, and as such, the present execution, was not competent. With regard to the first point, order 21. Rule 15 CPC provides that where, a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than, one, anyone or more of such persons may, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, apply for the execution of the whole decree fur the benefit of them all. It appears to me, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the nature of the, suit as framed and the nature of the decree thereon were such that it was rightly recorded as satisfied in the memoir and to the extent it was done by the judgment-debtor, namely, by payment to, some of the decree, holder mortgagors as aforesaid in satisfaction of their intersects in the, decree. Here there is no dispute as regards the respective shares of the joint decree-holders and such (sic) are (sic) on the face of the decree by necessary implication and therefore it is not strictly speaking, a joint decree. In such a case, the Plaintiff No. 2 decree-holder can take out execution in respect of his own share. With regard to the second point, it appears that there was an order certifying the payment of the sum of Rs. 4,000/- in full satisfaction of the decree under Order 21, Rule 2 CPC so far as the interests of the decree-holder-Respondents, other than the Plaintiff No. 2 decree-holder, are concerned. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Plaintiff No. 2 decree-holder can only execute the decree so far as his own interest in the decree is concerned and no more. 4,000/- in full satisfaction of the decree under Order 21, Rule 2 CPC so far as the interests of the decree-holder-Respondents, other than the Plaintiff No. 2 decree-holder, are concerned. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Plaintiff No. 2 decree-holder can only execute the decree so far as his own interest in the decree is concerned and no more. It is needless to over emphasise the effect of certification under Order 21, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure. It is this fact, nature and terms of certification which distinguish the present case from all other Cases cited in his appeal. 4. Mr. R.S. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents in this matter, cited before me a decision of the Bombay High Court n support of his contention that even if there was a risk of double payment in a case like this, the decree-holder was entitled to (sic) the entire decree. The case cited was Valchand Gulabchand Shah Vs. Manekbai Hirachand Shah and Another. The facts in that case were that one H and his son M by his pre-deceased first wife filed a suit against H's two brothers S and W for an account of certain property which they alleged had been entrusted to the two Defendants for management. During the pendency of the suit, H, the Plaintiff No. 1 died and his widow M-2 and minor son C were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives and they were impleaded as Plaintiffs 1A and 1B to the suit. During the course of the suit there was an arbitration. The arbitrator made an award and a decree in terms of the award was passed. Under the decree the Defendants were asked to deliver to the Plaintiffs possession of shares worth about Rs. 13,842/-, certain ornaments mentioned in the schedules Band C worth Rs. 13,574/- and Rs. 18,550/- respectively and other things mentioned in the decree. In the alternative, they were awarded a sum of Rs. 27,044/-. Furthermore, the Defendants were asked to render accounts of the money-lending business and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. 13,842/-, certain ornaments mentioned in the schedules Band C worth Rs. 13,574/- and Rs. 18,550/- respectively and other things mentioned in the decree. In the alternative, they were awarded a sum of Rs. 27,044/-. Furthermore, the Defendants were asked to render accounts of the money-lending business and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The Defendants having failed to satisfy the decree, the widow M-2 filed an execution case in the court of the Civil Judge to execute the decree on behalf of herself and her minor son C. A.s the decree was a joint decree, the execution application came to be filed under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 15 which enables one or more of the decree-holders to apply for execution of the whole decree for the benefit of all decree-holders. After an order of attachment was made by the executing court, W one of the Defendant judgment-debtors appeared before the court and contended, inter alia, that the application was not maintainable. W's defences to the execution application were that it was not maintainable as M had not joined; that ornaments mentioned in schedule B & C had already been handed over to M-? and M; that Rs. 10,000/- had been paid to M at the time of his marriage; and lastly, that the petitioning decree-holders had agreed to take one piece of land belonging to the Defendants in satisfaction of the decree to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. Both the executing court and Shah, J. held that application was maintainable and that the agreement to take one land in satisfaction of the decree had not been proved. This is a staring feature which distinguishes the Bombay case from the present case where there is no dispute as to the fact of payment of Rs. 4,000/- in satisfaction of the decree in so far as the interests of the decree-holders other than the Plaintiff No. 2 was concerned and such satisfaction was certified under Order 21, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure. It was in the above-mentioned circumstances that the Bombay High Court allowed execution to proceed even at the risk of double payment. 4,000/- in satisfaction of the decree in so far as the interests of the decree-holders other than the Plaintiff No. 2 was concerned and such satisfaction was certified under Order 21, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure. It was in the above-mentioned circumstances that the Bombay High Court allowed execution to proceed even at the risk of double payment. In the present case, the real point is that, having regard to the nature of the decree, to payment to some of several joint decree-holders amounted to discharge of those decree-holders share in the decree, with the effect that the remaining decree-holder can proceed to execute the decree only in respect of his own share therein. The Bombay High Court, in the case cited above, decided that payment to one of the several joint decree-holders cannot be recognized as a payment to all (unless he is authorised to receive such payment on behalf of all and does not amount to a 'protanto' satisfaction even to the extent of what is regarded to be the share in the decree of the decree-holder who receives payment. The staring fact in the Bombay case, which clearly distinguishes the present case, was that there was to payment in full satisfaction of the decree which was certified under Order 21, Rule 2 CPC as in the present case. If the law was otherwise then the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2 CPC would have no effect whatsoever. It is with a view to give valid discharge to the judgment-debtors that the provisions for certification of payment have been made with a view to protect them. In this view of the matter, I do not think that I can maintain the order of the lower appellate court or of the learned Munsif. 5. The result therefore, is, that the orders of the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Munsif are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed