JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This execution first appeal arises out of a suit for partition. Kishan Lal filed suit no. 74 of 1947 for partition of certain property situate at Agra and Delhi. Gauri Shanker and Hari Shanker were the defendants in the suit. There was a compromise between the parties on 28-3-1958. In due course a final decree for partition in terms of that compromise was passed by the court. Kishan Lal plaintiff was given half share in the joint property. 2. Gauri Shanker and Hari Shanker applied for execution of the partition decree by separating their joint share by metes and bounds. That execution application was opposed by Kishan Lal. He raised various points as regards maintainability of the execution application by Gauri Shanker and Hari Shanker. Kishan Lal's objection was upheld by the learned Civil Judge of Agra. He held on 15.2.1953 that the execution application was not maintainable. Against that order the present execution first appeal has been filed by Gauri Shanker. When the appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, he considered that the case involves a question of considerable importance. He, therefore, referred the case to a larger Bench. That is how this execution first appeal has come up before us. 3. The plaintiff-objector raised three points before the execution court. Mr. J.N. Chatterji appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has pressed only one of those points before us. That point relates to the right of a defendants to apply for execution of a partition decree without paying the prescribed stamp duty or court-fee. 4. Firstly, we shall consider whether a defendant is at all entitled to apply for execution of a partition decree. In Naha Haji v. Veeran, AIR 1942 Mad. 364 it was held that where a partition decree entitles the defendants to be put in possession of the properties allotted to him on payment of the necessary court fee the defendant is not obliged to pay the court fee and seek possession in execution of the partition decree and can file a separate suit for possession. In that case, clause (17) of the partition decree ran thus:- "That the remaining sharers other than plaintiff shall be put in possession of their respective shares on paying the necessary court-fees." 5. In Lakshmi Narayana v. Suryanarayana, AIR 1934 Mad. In that case, clause (17) of the partition decree ran thus:- "That the remaining sharers other than plaintiff shall be put in possession of their respective shares on paying the necessary court-fees." 5. In Lakshmi Narayana v. Suryanarayana, AIR 1934 Mad. 680 it was held that the question whether a decree is executable has to be settled primarily upon the form or language of the decree itself. That was not a case arising out of a decree for partition. So the question whether a defendant can apply for execution of a partition decree did not arise in that case. In Lachmi Narayan v. Balmakund, AIR 1924 P.C. 198 their Lordships of the Privy Council had to deal with a partition suit. It was observed on page 200 :- "The parties have, on the making of the decree acquired rights or incurred liabilities which are fixed, unless or until the decree is varied or set aside. After a decree any party can apply to have it enforced." 6. In Bai Karimabibi v. Abderehman, AIR 1923 Bom. 26, it was held that a decree for specific performance may be executed either by the plaintiff or by the defendant. 7. In Sheikh Khoorshed Hossain v. Nubbee Fatima, ILR 3 Cal. 551 it was held that a decree for partition is a joint declaration of the rights of persons interested in the property of which partition is sought, and as such, when properly drawn up is in favour of each shareholder or set of shareholders having a distinct share. 8. In Iswar Sridhar Jew v. Jnanendra Nath, AIR 1960 Cal. 718 it was held that a scheme decree is executable at the instance of any party. 9. Thus we find that there is ample authority in support of the view that it is open to a defendant to apply for execution of a partition decree. Although the decree specified the share of the plaintiff there is also a specification of the shares of the defendants jointly. The defendants can enforce the decree for partition to get possession over the share allotted to them jointly. 10. The next question for consideration is whether the defendants applicants are required to pay stamp duty or court-fee before proceeding to execute the decree. In Venkatasubhamma v. Ramanandhayya, AIR 1932 Mad. The defendants can enforce the decree for partition to get possession over the share allotted to them jointly. 10. The next question for consideration is whether the defendants applicants are required to pay stamp duty or court-fee before proceeding to execute the decree. In Venkatasubhamma v. Ramanandhayya, AIR 1932 Mad. 722 it was held that, in a suit for partition the defendant is merely to ask for his share, and it is then open to the Court to order the defendant's share also to be separated, and the right of the Crown to some revenue on the claim of the defendant is satisfied by the direction in the Stamp Act that the decree as finally drawn up should be stamped as an instrument of partition and except that stamp duty no other duty as court fee is payable by the defendant in such a suit. 11. Mr. J.N. Chatterji relied upon Article 45 of the Stamp Act. Under Article 45, stamp-duty is payable upon an instrument of partition. The decree for partition may be constructed as an instrument of partition. On such an instrument the same duty is payable as on a bond for the value of the separated share or shares of the property. In the present case the plaintiff share was separated under the partition decree. We understand from the learned counsel for the parties that the plaintiff duly paid the Stamp Duty prescribed by Article 45 of the Stamp Act. We do not think that the defendants are required to pay any additional stamp duty under that provision, simply because they are not seeking execution of the decree. 12. Article 2-A of Schedule I, Court-fee Act prescribing court-fee on an application or written statement by a defendant in a suit for partition praying for partition of his share in the property sought to be partitioned. That provision comes into play when a defendant applies for separation of his share during the pendency of the partition suit. In the present case one defendant did so apply at one stage, but he failed to pay the prescribed court-fee. So that application was treated as withdraw. No such question arises where the defendant merely seeks execution of a partition decree. 13. In Maq-bul Ahmad v. Mt. Afzalul Nisa, AIR 1936 Lah. In the present case one defendant did so apply at one stage, but he failed to pay the prescribed court-fee. So that application was treated as withdraw. No such question arises where the defendant merely seeks execution of a partition decree. 13. In Maq-bul Ahmad v. Mt. Afzalul Nisa, AIR 1936 Lah. 1 it was held that there is nothing in law which requires a defendant in a partition suit to pay court fee in order to have his share separately allotted to him. The decree that is finally drawn up has to be stamped as an instrument of partition under the Stamp act and except that duty no other duty is payable by the defendant. 14. It therefore, appears that the defendants-applicants are not required now to pay either stamp duty or court fee on the partition decree for the purpose of execution. The compromise decree shows that specific portion in the joint property was allotted to the two defendants. The two defendants are entitled to get possession over the property allotted to them. The learned Civil Judge was wrong in holding that the execution application was not maintainable. 15. The appeal is allowed with costs. We set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge, Agra, Dates 15-12-1962 and direct the lower court to proceed with the execution application in accordance with law. Let the record be sent down to the execution court at an early date.