JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a second appeal of Judgment-Debtor against the order dated September 8, 1976 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dismissing appeal no. 203 of 1975-76/Mainpuri confirming order of execution passed by the trial court dated May 17, 1976 dismissing objection dated April 26, 1976/April 27, 1976 against order of execution of damages of Rs. 3,400/- on the ground that the trial court had dismissed the suit against defendant-judgment-debtor and the lower appellate cour had decreed it with costs only and has not decreed his suit with damages of Rs. 3,400/- and the decree does not mention this amount, therefore, it cannot be realised in execution. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that the decree can not be altered or amended and the articles attached are household affairs of an agriculturist and are not liable to be attached and sold as provided by Section 60 of the C.P.C. Reliance has been placed on Smt. Nagina Devi v. Nanhey Mal, 1966 A.W.R. 770; Damber Singh v. B. Kallyan Singh, AIR 1922 Alld. 27 and V. Ramaswami Aiyenger and others v. T.N. V. Kailasa Thevar, AIR 1951 S.C. 189 . 4. It has been argued that the judgment-debtor by his application dated November 26, 1977, September 29, 1971 admitted the amount to be executable by praying for time as it was being executed only against 3 judgment debtors and not against other 3 judgment debtors and the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated March 9, 1976 granting time upto May 1, 1976 for depositing the money was not complied with, therefore, the decree was executable which was determined by the trial court by looking into the parties and as the suit was decreed in toto, therefore, it will be deemed to have been decreed for damages also otherwise as in the decree even here is no mention of effect but it was executed about. 5. I have perused the copy of the judgment of learned Additional Commissioner, Sri Mubarak Husain who had allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and had decreed the suit with costs. In the judgment no where it is mentioned that the suit was being decreed also for damages. The point of damages was not at all dealt with by him. 5. I have perused the copy of the judgment of learned Additional Commissioner, Sri Mubarak Husain who had allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and had decreed the suit with costs. In the judgment no where it is mentioned that the suit was being decreed also for damages. The point of damages was not at all dealt with by him. Therefore he had decreed suit of the plaintiff only for declaration and ejectment with costs. The decree which was prepared after it does not mention anything about the ejectment also but ejectment decree was executed and Dakhal was taken by the plaintiff and it was rightly done so because the suit was for ejectment which was decreed. 6. As far as damages are concerned the copy of the decree by its perusal does not mention anything about damages of Rs. 3,400/- which mention only costs Rs. 13.69 paise, therefore, there is no ambiguity about it and the courts below in reaching the amount of damages which was claimed in the plaint to the part of the decree acted illegally any beyond jurisdiction and the order for granting execution about damages also was highly illegal and arbitrary because the decree was not vague, therefore recourse to perusal of pleadings of the parties was not open to the executing court because the copy of the judgment of the lower appellate court and the copy of the decree based on it are not at all ambiguous, therefore, the executing court by going behind the decrees act illegally and as a matter of fact it amounted to amendment of the decree which was never sough by the decree-holder. 7. The duty of the executing court is to give effect to the terms of the decree. It has no power to go beyond its terms though it was power to interpret the decree, it cannot make a new decree for the parties under the guise of interpretation. See V. Ramasawmi Aiyengar and others v. T.N.V. Kailasa Theval (supra). 8. The executing Court can only add execution costs to a decree in the course of execution proceedings it cannot add to or amend the decree under execution. See Damber Singh v. B. Kallyan Singh(supra). 9. See V. Ramasawmi Aiyengar and others v. T.N.V. Kailasa Theval (supra). 8. The executing Court can only add execution costs to a decree in the course of execution proceedings it cannot add to or amend the decree under execution. See Damber Singh v. B. Kallyan Singh(supra). 9. It has been held in Smt. Nagina Devi v. Nanhey Mal (supra), that if decree is vague recourse may be had to the perusal of the pleadings and the judgment in order to find out the real implication of the direction given in the decree if direction in decree in clear execution court can not alter the decree by a perusal of pleadings and judgment. 10. Section of the C.P.C. mentions property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree and by its proviso provides article not to be attached in Clause (a) and in Clause (b), tools artisans and where the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist his impleadment of husbandry and such cattle and seed-grain as may, in the opinion of the court be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood at such ..... are mentioned not mandatorily liable to such attachment but in the present case the list of attachment reveals that both clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 60 have been flagrantly violated. But in view of the above the decree for damages being not executable. Attachment will have to be vacated because the amount of costs being only Rs. 13.69 P. plus costs of the execution only being executable. The amount will be small which can be deposited by the Judgment-debtor, therefore, he will be given time to deposit it. If he fails to do so within time given then only attachment for that amount only will be issued. 11. In view of the above, this second appeal is allowed with costs. The orders passed by both the courts below are set aside regarding execution for damages of Rs. 3,400/- and the attachment dated November 22, 1975 is also set aside. The attached article and property shall be realised in favour of the judgment-debtor. The decree for costs of Rs. 13.69 plus costs of execution only shall be executed for which judgment-debtor will be given one month's time for depositing it. If he fails to do so then only process for execution shall be issued.