JUDGMENT V.R. Nevaskar, J. These two Second Appeals Nos. 136 and 137 of 1956 arise out of two different suits between the same parties. Each of these two suits are based on Badala Chithis executed by the Defendant Natbulal in favour of the joint family firm of the Plaintiffs Biradichand Jagannath on Mangasar Bidi Amasvas Samvat Year 2003 and Maha Bidi 2 Samvat Year 2003 for two several sums of Rs. 5,000 borrowed by the Defendant from the Plaintiffs' firm. Each of the amount was repayable at the end of twelve months from the date of the Chithis. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant paid only Rs. 2,187-8-0 towards the liability under each of the Badala Chithis and failed to pay the balance. Plaintiffs therefore filed two different suits for recovery of the balance of principal amounts of Rs. 2,812-8-0 in each case without charging any interest. The defence to these suits was the same. It was that the present suits were not competent as the Defendant after the execution of the Badala Chithis aforesaid had been financially embarrassed and he had constituted a committee of creditors to whom he had entrusted bis property for payment to his creditors ratably; that the Plaintiff was a consenting party to this arrangement and had received dividends from the committee amounting to Rs. 2,187-8-0 in each case: that the committee had not ceased to function and consequently the Plaintiff could only look to the committee for the repayment of his dues and could not sue the Defendant. During the pendency of each of these suits the creditors' committee declared further dividends and consequently Rs. 1,250 had been deposited in each of these cases towards the Plaintiffs' dues. The trial Court upheld the defence and further rejected Plaintiffs' application for withdrawal of Rs. 1,250 deposited by the Defendant for payment to the Plaintiffs. Both the suits were consequently dismissed. On appeal the decision was confirmed. In these second appeals against the orders of dismissal of Plaintiff's suit Mr. Waghmare for the Appellants contended that the Plaintiffs had neither effected novatio nor had given discharge to the Defendant in respect of his liability under the 'Badala Chithis'. Whatever payment had been made on behalf of the Defendant had been given credit to. In the absence of novatio or discharge the suits could not have been dismissed. Waghmare for the Appellants contended that the Plaintiffs had neither effected novatio nor had given discharge to the Defendant in respect of his liability under the 'Badala Chithis'. Whatever payment had been made on behalf of the Defendant had been given credit to. In the absence of novatio or discharge the suits could not have been dismissed. He further pressed fresh applications given by him in these appeal praying for an order permitting the Plaintiffs to withdraw the amounts of Rs. 1,250 in each case which the Defendant had deposited during the pendency of the suit. 7. As regards the last prayer for withdrawal of the amounts deposited by the Defendant for payment to the Plaintiffs Mr. Chaphekar for the Defendant conceded that the Defendant has no objection to the amounts being ordered to be paid to the Plaintiffs. He however contended that no decree could be passed in these suits inasmuch as the Plaintiffs according to the findings of fact of both the Courts below was a consenting party to the arrangement arrived at between the Defendant and his creditors whereby a creditors' committee was constituted and they were entrusted with the property of the Defendant for its sale and payment to the consenting creditors pro-rata. The Learned Counsel referred to the first notice given by the creditors' committee or Panchas Ex. D/2 whereby the said committee had announced first dividend at 25 per cent, and required such of the creditors, who were agreeable to the arrangement whereby the balance of dues would be paid as and when recovered out of the assets of the Defendant, to append their signatures below the notice expressing their consent. The Plaintiff Motilal who was the manager of the joint family firm of Plaintiffs had given his consent by putting his signature below Ex. D/2. Later dividends of Rs. 1,875 and 2,500 were announced on two different occasions by the committee towards the Plaintiffs' total dues of Rs. 10,000. The Plaintiff Motilal on behalf of the firm accepted those sums and executed receipts Ex. D/3 and D/4 for the same and even then agreed that the balance of dues would be received by him as and when further dividends would be announced by the committee and that any decision taken by the committee in respect of the debts of the Defendant would be acceptable to them. D/3 and D/4 for the same and even then agreed that the balance of dues would be received by him as and when further dividends would be announced by the committee and that any decision taken by the committee in respect of the debts of the Defendant would be acceptable to them. These three documents according to the Learned Counsel clearly establish a binding arrangement between the parties and the creditors who were assenting parties to the same that the payments would be received through the instrumentality of the committee. It is competent under the arrangement, according to the Learned Counsel, to pay the balance of dues if there be sufficient assets with them in hand or to declare that no more amounts would be paid and that dividends declared and paid so far should fully discharge the entire dues. Enforcement of liability by filing suits ignoring the committee is according to the Learned Counsel not permissible. As regards the payment of the amounts of Rs. 1,250 deposited by the Defendant for payment to Plaintiffs as subsequently declared dividends since both the parties agree there appears to be no objection for the Plaintiffs being allowed to withdraw the said sums. But as regards Plaintiffs' contention for a decree for the balance with costs it cannot be disputed in these second appeals that the Plaintiffs' firm was a consenting party to the arrangement between the Defendant and his creditors whereby he entrusted his assets to a committee constituted by the creditors for their being liquidated, recovered and paid pro-rata to the consenting creditors and the Plaintiffs came to Court ignoring and suppressing this arrangement particularly after assenting to it and taking benefit under it. If they wanted to claim their dues on the ground that by reason of something which took place subsequent to their assent which entitled them to avoid the, arrangement they should have come with that specific case and upon a different cause of action and not on the basis of Badala Chithis simpliciter. In Nathu Mal v. Gokal Chand, AIR 1938 Lah 769, it is held by Bhide and Beckett JJ.: The general nature of compositions and arrangements outside an Insolvency Court has been explained in Vol. II, Edition 2 of Halsbury's Laws of England, under Part II of the section relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency. In Nathu Mal v. Gokal Chand, AIR 1938 Lah 769, it is held by Bhide and Beckett JJ.: The general nature of compositions and arrangements outside an Insolvency Court has been explained in Vol. II, Edition 2 of Halsbury's Laws of England, under Part II of the section relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency. A composition is an agreement between the compounding debtor and all or some of his creditors, by which the compounding creditors agree with the debtor, and (expressly or impliedly) with each other, to accept from the debtor payment of less than the amounts due to them in full satisfaction of the whole of their claims. The consideration which in such a case enables the acceptance of pert(sic) of a debt to operate as a discharge of the whole debt is the mutual agreement of the creditors to forge parts of their claims. One method of arrangement of an insolvent debtor's affairs which the law recognises is an assignment of the debtor's property to a trustee for realisation and distribution of the proceeds ratably amongst all the debtor's creditors, or amongst those who assent to and take the benefit of the assignment. Such an assignment operates in effect to place the administration of the debtor's estate in the hands of a trustee for the benefit of the creditors. The assignment is the voluntary act of the arranging debtor, and the trusts to which the assignment is subject are those which the debtor himself creates-The deed becomes operative to release or suspend the operation of creditors' claims by virtue of the assent of the creditors thereto; and it only binds those creditors who in writing or otherwise expressly or impliedly assent to it. In Dargahi Lal v. Sant Lal, AIR 1933 Oudh 361, Nanavatty J., considered the question regarding binding character of the arrangement between the debtor and his creditors whereby the creditors agreed to take less than full amount in full satisfaction of their dues. In Dargahi Lal v. Sant Lal, AIR 1933 Oudh 361, Nanavatty J., considered the question regarding binding character of the arrangement between the debtor and his creditors whereby the creditors agreed to take less than full amount in full satisfaction of their dues. It was held by the learned Judge relying upon the decision of the Privy Council reported in Chunna Mal Ram Nath v. Mool Chand Ram Bhagat, AIR 1928 PC 99, and illustration (e) to Section 63 of the Contract Act, that an arrangement between the debtor and his creditors whereby the latter agreed to accept less than the full amount binds them even when the arrangement is to operate in future and no separate consideration is needed for the same and that the opinion expressed to the contrary in Maung Put v. Mating Po Thant, AIR 1928 Rang 144, was not correct and had been overruled by the aforesaid Privy Council case. In Syed Ahmad v. Ram Gopal, 1939 NLJ 256 : AIR 1939 Nag 224, Gruer J. had to consider the case of an agreement between a creditor and a debtor with respect to the debt. The agreement was partly performed. It was held that mere agreement to substitute a new contract for the old does away with the necessity of performing the first one. In Ram Nath v. Manny Lal ILR 45 All 472 : AIR 1923 All 618, the parties had agreed to be bound by the decision of a Panchayat. One of the parties who wanted to resile from it was not allowed to do it. It appears clear from these decisions that it is competent for a creditor to agree with his debtor and other co-creditors to secure the payment of his dues full or partial under a certain arrangement and when such an agreement is made it is not permissible for a creditor to back out particularly after taking benefit under it. The arrangement in the present case makes full provision for discharging the liability of the creditor and empowers the committee to make payment out of the assets of the debtor entrusted to them and further to declare that no further dividends could be paid and the debt would be treated as fully discharged. The arrangement in the present case makes full provision for discharging the liability of the creditor and empowers the committee to make payment out of the assets of the debtor entrusted to them and further to declare that no further dividends could be paid and the debt would be treated as fully discharged. That being the position it was not competent for the Plaintiffs to avoid and suppress the arrangement and to sue on the basis of the Badala Chithis when they had expressly agreed with the Defendant and the creditors that they would receive whatever was realised out of assets by the committee and declared as payable. This agreement took the place of initial liability under the Badala Chithis and was fully binding upon the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs it seems were aware of this position and consequently in spite of initial agreement to pay interest on the loan no claim to interest was put forward. Mr. Waghmare for the Appellants contended in this connection that the details of the arrangement and the creation of trust etc. are not fully brought on record and the Courts below were not justified in assuming the arrangement and the Trust. In this case however alt that is not necessary. The Plaintiffs' own admission contained in documents D/2, D/3 and D/4 clearly make out a case for non-suiting them. I would for these reasons hold that the Plaintiffs' suits on the basis of Badala Chithis against the Defendant were incompetent and have been rightly dismissed. The appeals are consequently dismissed with costs subject to Plaintiffs' being allowed to withdraw the amounts deposited by the Defendant for their being paid to them. Appeal dismissed