ORDER: The petitioner’s have filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the death-cum-retirement benefits of Late G.Krishnan to the petitioners herein as per the compromise decree passed by the learned XI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in O.S.No.8959 of 1995 on 7.11.2000. 2. The petitioners herein claimed themselves as legal heirs of Late G.Krishnan employed as Sanitary worker in the zone under the control of the 2nd respondent herein, the first respondent has over all control of all the Zones of the corporation of Chennai. The said G.Krishnan died in harness on 24.5.1993 and the petitioners herein applied for death cum retirement benefits. One Thalammal also made rival claim stating her as legally wedded wife of the said G.Krishnan, hence the respondents directed the petitioner to produce succession certificate from the competent Court of law. 3. The petitioners herein failed a suit in O.S.No.959 of 1995 before XI Assistant City Civil Court against Thalammal and the first respondent herein for declaration to declare them as legal heirs, injunction restraining the second defendant herein from making any proposal of the aid Thalammal and direct the 2nd respondent to pay all death cum retirement benefits to them. Later, the said Thalammal and the petitioners herein entered into a compromise to share the benefits and compromise decree was also passed on 7.11.2000 to that effect. Based on the compromise decree, the petitioner requested the respondent to settle the benefits in terms of the compromise decree and the respondents herein still insist upon them to produce succession certificate, hence the said writ petition. 4. The petitioners have filed the said suit for declaration to declare them as legal heirs, later entered into a compromise to share the benefits with the said Thalammal and a decree to that effect was passed. In that decree neither the rights of the petitioners are declared to enable them to get the benefits nor satisfied the requirements for disbursement of such benefits, besides that it is invalid and inexecutable. Admittedly, the Corporation namely the respondents herein were not a party to the compromise. Hence, the respondents have rightly directed the petitioners to produce succession certificate. 5. Admittedly, the Corporation namely the respondents herein were not a party to the compromise. Hence, the respondents have rightly directed the petitioners to produce succession certificate. 5. Now we look into the relevant provisions namely Secs.2(2), 2(3), O.23, Rule 3 of C.P.C and Sec.23 of the Indian Contract Act: "Sec.2 (2): Decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Sec.144, but shall not include, (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation: A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final. Sec.2(3): Decree-holder means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. O.23, Rule 3: Compromise of suit: Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjudicated wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise (in writing and signed by the parties) or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith (so far it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit) (Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment). Explanation: An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872) shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule) Sec.23 of Indian Contract Act: The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless- It is forbidden by law, or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration of or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void." 6. It is evident from the definitions that a decree means a formal expression of an adjudication by the Court conclusively determines the right of the parties with regard to or in other matters in controversy in the suit. The decree without a positive directions or without a declaration of the right of the parties or it lacks in many of the material particulars which a decree should inevitably contain cannot be executable. Decree-holder means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. In this decree neither the right of the petitioners are declared nor satisfied the requirements for disbursement of the benefits of the deceased, nor postulates lawful compromise. As defined in Sec.23 of the Indian Contract Act, an agreement or compromise, which is void or voidable under the Indian contract Act shall not be deemed to be lawful. The ingredients for recording compromise and dispose of the suit are: (i) agreement or compromise has been entered by all the parties; (ii) it should be lawful; (iii) the agreement must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. If any one of the ingredients is missing, the suit cannot be divided in terms of compromise. In this case, the Corporation of Chennai is not a party to the compromise. A combined reading of O.23, Rule 3, C.P.C. and Sec.23 of the Indian Contract Act would make it clear that the compromise decree has not declared the right of the petitioners enabling to seek the said benefits. 7. In this case, the Corporation of Chennai is not a party to the compromise. A combined reading of O.23, Rule 3, C.P.C. and Sec.23 of the Indian Contract Act would make it clear that the compromise decree has not declared the right of the petitioners enabling to seek the said benefits. 7. The legal heirs alone are entitled to the benefits of the deceased employee and the compromise decree declaring the two persons namely the first petitioner and Thalammal as wives of the deceased G.Krishnan is forbidden by law and the respondents have rightly directed the petitioners to produce succession certificate without considering the compromise decree is perfectly in order. 8. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the directions given by the respondents. This writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P’s. are closed.