Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 632 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 5	 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 325 of 1957. G.N. Kunzru	 B.C. Misra	 P.K. Chakravarti and Om Prakash	 for the appellants. J. P. Goyal and S.P. Singh	 for the respondents. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Dhavan	 J.) allowing the revision under section 115	 C.P.C.	 and dismissing the suit brought by the appellants hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs. The relevant facts for the purpose of 	appreciating the points raised before us are as follows: The four plaintiffs	 out of which three are appellants before us the fourth having died	 brought a suit for damages against the six defendants (one defendant had in the meantime died and four are respondents before us). The allegations in the plaint	 in brief	 were that the plaintiffs and the defendants were members of an 	association called Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman; that the defendants	 alongwith some other members of the association	 formed a group and each of them conspired among themselves to injure and harass the plaintiffs and a few others in various ways; that at a meeting held on May 5	 1954	 in connection with the election of Trustees	 when defendant N.A. Guzder occupied the chair	 he gave a ruling that the plaintiffs Kershasp section Gandhi and B.T.J. Shapoorji	 since deceased	 were unfit candidates for the office of Trustees and thus prevented them from seeking election	 and contrary to the rules of the Anjuman and without taking votes declared the defendant	 F.J. Gandhi	 and one A.F. Cama duly elected. It was further alleged that on 961 July 3	 1954	 another meeting of the Anjuman was held when the plaintiffs Khushro section Gandhi and Framroze section Gandhi were candidates for election to the office of the trustees	 and defendant F.J. Gandhi gave a perverse ruling rejecting the nominations of the above plaintiffs and after taking votes declared G.T. Shappoorjee as duly elected trustee; that by the aforesaid rejections the plaintiffs had suffered an injury for which defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were jointly and severally liable and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages from the defendants. The plaint was filed on January 21	 1955. Before any written statement was submitted	 on February 13	 1955 the sixth defendant section Rabadi	 entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs. The terms of the compromise were: "1. I	 Shavak Dorabjee Rabadi	 defendant No. 6 have considered the subject matter of the suit and am sincerely sorry and apologise to the plaintiffs unconditionally for whatever I have done. I realise that I was m error *and was misguided. The plaintiffs above named accept the apology tendered by Shri Shavak Dorabjee Rabadi defendant No. 6 and the suit against him may be disposed of treating the aforesaid apology and its acceptance by the plaintiffs as a settlement of the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 6. 3. The plaintiffs do not claim any costs against the defendant No. 6 and defendant No. 6 will bear his own costs. It is therefore prayed that the claim against defendant No. 6 may be disposed of in terms of the above settlement. " A decree was passed in terms of this compromise against defendant No. 6. On May 14	 1955	 the other defendants filed a written statement and inter alia alleged: "That the release of defendant No. 6 Sri section Rabadi	 an alleged joint tort feasor and the compromise entered into behind the back of the answering defendants with him in full settlement of their suit for damages	 appears to be collusive and dishonest and the release by the plaintiffs of defendant No. 6 from his joint liability as a tort feasor has in law extinguished the plaintiffs ' rights to sue the others remaining defendants and claim damage from them." 962 It was further alleged that "the four plaintiffs could not be legally allowed to totalise the sum of their individual damage	 alleged to have been suffered	 and thereby procure the trial of the suit in the court of higher jurisdiction	 and that the suit had been purposely over valued. In a statement dated March 17, 1956, the plaintiffs clarified that the damages are being claimed by the plaintiffs in respect of all the facts mentioned in the plaint and particularly as a result of the facts that have been mentioned in paragraphs 17 and 19 the plaint"	 and further "that on account of all the facts complained of each plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 10	100 as damages but the plaintiffs have claimed only Rs. 10	100 and have given up rest of the claim. " Two of the issues framed by the Civil Judge	 may be set out: "Issue No. 5. What is effect of the compromise between plaintiffs and defendant No. 6	 as against rights of the other defendants ? Is the suit not maintainable against other defendants ? Issue No. 11. Is the court fee paid by the plaintiffs insufficient ?" By order dated September 18	 1956	 the Civil	 Judge held that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs was insufficient and that there was a deficiency of Rs. 905/12/ in the court fee which the plaintiffs had to make good. The plaintiffs were given 15 days time to make good the deficiency. Instead of paying the money the plaintiffs applied under O.VI	 r. 17	 C.P.C.	 for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiffs stated in this application that they would in consideration of the order of the Court split the amount of Rs. 10	100/ into two portions claiming Rs. 5	050/ each in respect of the two separate incidents dated July 3	 1955	 and May 5	 1955	 respectively. The defendants filed an application contending that as the plaintiffs had failed to make good the deficiency in the court fee within the time given	 the plaint should be rejected in view of the provisions of the O. VII	 r. 11	 C.P.C. and section 6	 U.P. Court Fees Act. By order dated November 28	 1956	 the Civil Judge allowed the plaintiffs ' application for amendment on payment of Rs. 30/ as costs	 and also rejected the defendants ' application. Against this order the defendants filed a revision. Dhavan	 J.	 first dealt with the point whether the plaintiffs could renounce a part of the claim instead of making good the deficiency in court fee. He came to the conclusion that the suit contained four causes of action	 and that the plaintiffs had to pay court fee on four separate causes of action of the value of Rs. 2	525/ each. As the learned counsel for the plaintiffs had 963 given an undertaking to make good any deficiency in court fee	 Dhavan	 J.	 directed the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the four separate causes of action valued at Rs. 2525/ each. He also directed an amendment to be made in the plaint. The learned Judge felt that it would be in the interest of justice that the question covered by issue No. 5 being one of law should be decided by him in the revision. It appears that the counsel for both parties conceded that the Court had power to decide the issue as the entire record was there	 although the learned for the plaintiffs felt that the decision should be left to the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants contends before us that the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide issue No. 5 in a revision. He says that the subject matter of the revision was the order of the Civil Judge dated November 28	 1956	 and the High Court could not decide any other point and convert itself into an original court. The learned counsel for the respondents tried to justify the decision regarding jurisdiction of the High Court under section 24	 C.P.C. This section inter alia	 provides that the High Court may withdraw any suit	 appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it and try and dispose of the same. We are unable to appreciate how the order of the learned Judge can be justified under section 24. He has not purported to withdraw 'any suit and try the same. What he has done is to try an issue arising in a suit in a revision arising out of an interlocutory order. It seems to us that the High Court	 even if the parties conceded	 had no power to decide the issue. But if we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the case to the Civil Judge to try it according to law	 the Civil Judge would feel handicapped in deciding the case properly because he will feel bound to follow the opinion given by the learned Judge on issue No. 5. Under the circumstances we heard arguments on the issue. Dhavan J.	 following the English Common Law	 held that the decree against Rabadi was complete accord and satisfaction and the cause of action against all the defendants being one and indivisible	 the decree operated as a bar against further proceedings against the remaining joint wrong doers. Winfield on Tort (8th edn.) p. 661 states the English Law thus: "The liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several	 each may be sued alone	 or jointly with some or all the others in one action; each is liable for the whole damage	 and judgment obtained against all of them jointly may be executed in full against any one of them. At common law	 final judgment obtained against one 964 joint tort feasor released all the others	 even though it was wholly unsatisfied. This was established in Brinsmead vs Harrison(1) and the reason put by Blackburn J.	 was Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. Kelly C.B. urged that if the rule were otherwise	 then in a second action the second jury might assess an amount different from that in the first action and the plaintiff would not know for which sum he should levy execution. The rule was abolished by the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act	 1935. It has long been settled that the release of one joint tortfeasor releases all the others	 because the cause of action is one and indivisible. This rule has not been affected by the Act of 1935. It applies to a release under seal and to 'a release by way o	f accord and satisfaction	 and probably to nothing else. A mere covenant or agreement not to sue	 as distinguished from an actual release	 does not destroy the cause of action	 but merely prevents it from being enforced against the particular tortfeasor with whom it is made. " That was not the law in England in the beginning. The history of the law on this point is set out in William 's 'Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence ' (p. 35 footnote) as follows: "In Y.B. (1305) 33 35 E. 1	 R.S. 7	 it was apparently held that in trespass against four	 a verdict against two did not of itself prevent continuance against the other two. The verdict may not	 however	 have been embodied in a judgment. The former rule appears more clearly from Y.B. (1342) 16 E. 3	 1 R.S. 171	 where judgment against one did not bar the action against the others. That the parties were joint tortfeasors appears plainly from the note from the record	 ibid	 175 n. 7. See also Y.BB	 E. 3. 7b	 pl. 4; (1412/ 13) H. 14 H. 4.22b	 131. 27; in the latter it is said that in trespass against two	 if one be condemned and the plaintiff has execution against him with satisfaction	 he shall be barred against the others thus implying that the mere judgment would not bar. Hickman vs Machin (1605) 1 Ro. 896	 (F) 4	 7	 from which case	 however (sub. Hickman vs Payns)	 a different inference is drawn in Broome vs Wooton ; (1605) Yelv. 67	 The first discussion of the question in the Year Books is in Y.B	 (1441) M. 20 H. 6	 11a	 pl. 24	 where X had first sued A	 B	 and C in trespass and (1) 965 obtained judgment against A	 who alone appeared to the writ; later X	 not having levied execution under this judgment	 sued B. Paston and Fulthorpe expressed opinions that he was not barred by the first judgment	 but Newton C.J. thought that he was. In Y.B. (1495)M. 11 Ii. 7. 5b	 pl. 23 (Bro. Trespas 428) it was said that one can release one joint tortfeasor after judgment 	against another without affecting that other; such a release would have been unnecessary if the judgment had discharged all other joint tortfeasors. Y. BB. (1474) T. 14 E. 4. 6a	 pl. 2; (1475) T. 15 E. 4. 26b	 pl. 3. The rule was not settled in 1584	 for it was then made a question whether even satisfaction following on judgment would discharge the others (above 9 n.2); and see Cocke vs Jennor (n.d.) Hob. 66; 	 	 where it was said that if joint tortfeasors be sued in several actions	 satisfaction by one would discharge the others; it was not said that judgment against one would discharge." The common law rule was first established by the case of Broome (Brown) vs Wooton(x) and the only reason given was that transit in rem judicatam. Goldrel Foucard & Sons vs Sinclair and Russian Chamber of Commerce in London(2) Sargant	 L regarded the rule in Brinsmead vs Harrison(a) highly technical. The rule was changed in England by legislation vide The Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act	 Pt. II (25 & 26 Geo. 5	 c. 30). Section 6(1)(a) and (b) of that Act read as follows: "Where damage is suffered by any person as a result of a tort (whether a crime or not) (a) judgment recovered against any tortfeasor liable in respect of that damage shall not be a bar to an action against any other person who would	 if sued	 have been liable as a joint tortfeasor in respect of the same damage; (b) if more than one action is brought in respect of that damage by or on behalf of the person by whom it was suffered	 or for the benefit of the estate	 or of the wife	 husband	 parent or child of that person	 against tortfeasors 	liable in respect of the damage (whether as joint tortfeasors or otherwise) the sums recoverable under. the (1) ; (2) 	 192	 (3) 	 966 judgments given in those actions by way of damages shall not in the aggregate exceed the amount of the damages awarded by the judgment first given; and in any of those actions	 other than that in which judgment is first given	 the plaintiff shall not be entitled to costs unless the court is opinion that there was reasonable ground for bringing the action. " This provision has been adopted in other parts of the Commonwealth. Recently in Egger vs Viscount Chelmsford(1) Lord Denning M.R.	 observed: "I cannot help thinking that the root of 'all the trouble is the tacit assumption that if one of the persons concerned in a joint publication is a tortfeasor	 then all are joint tortfeasors. They must therefore stand or fail together. So much so that the defence of one is the defence of all; and the malice of one is the malice of all. I think this assumption rests on a fallacy. In point of law	 no tortfeasors can truly be described solely as joint tortfeasors. They are always several tortfeasors as well. In any joint tort	 the party injured has his choice of whom to sue. He can sue all of them together or any one or more of them separately. This has been the law for centuries. It is well stated in Serjeant Williams ' celebrated notes to Saunders ' Report (1845 ed.) of Cabell vs Vaughan ; f g. I. several persons jointly commit a tort	 the plaintiff has his election to sue all or any number of the parties; because a tort is in its nature the separate act of each individual '. Therein lies the gist of the matter. Even in a joint tort	 the tort is the separate act of each individual. Each is severally answerable for it; and	 being severally answerable	 each is severally entitled to his own defence. If he is himself innocent of malice	 he is entitled to the benefit of it. He is not to be dragged down with the guilty. No one is by our English law to be pronounced a wrongdoer	 or be made liable to be made to pay damages for a wrong	 unless he himself has done wrong; or his agent or servant has done wrong and he is vicariously responsible for it. Save in the case where the principle respondent superior applies	 the law does not impute wrongdoing to a man who is in fact innocent." (1) 	 264. 967 Gatley on 'Libel and Slander ' (Sixth Edition)	 in a footnote at p. 367	 remarks regarding the approach of Lord Denning in Egger vs Chelmsford ( 1 ): "His approach is also not easy to reconcile with the law on the release o.f joint tortfeasors". In the United States of America	 in an early decision	 Lovejoy vs Murray(2)	 the United States Supreme Court refused to follow the English Common Law. Miller J. speaking on behalf of the Court	 observed	 after referring to Broome (Brown) vs Wooten ( 3 ) and other cases: "The rule in that case has been defended on two grounds	 and on one or both of these it must be sustained	 if at 'all. The first of these is	 that the uncertain claim for damages before judgment has	 by the principle of transit in rem judicatam	 become merged into a judgment which is of a higher nature. This principle	 however	 can only be applicable to parties to the judgment; for as to the other parties who may be liable	 it is not true that plaintiff has acquired a security of any higher nature than he had before. Nor has he	 as to them	 been in anywise benefited or advanced towards procuring satisfaction for his damages	 by such judgment. This is now generally admitted to be the true rule on this subject	 in cases of persons jointly and severally liable on contracts; and no reason is perceived why joint trespassers should be placed in a better condition. As remarked by Lord Ellenborough	 in Drake vs Mitchell	 	 'A judgment recovered in any form of action	 is still but a security for the original cause of action	 until it be made productive in satisfaction to the party; and	 therefore	 till then	 it can not operate to change any other collateral concurrent remedy which the party may have. ' The second ground on which the rule is defended is	 that by the judgment against one joint trespasser	 the title of the property concerned is vested in the defendant in that action	 and therefore no suit can afterwards be maintained by the former owner for the value of that property	 or for any injury done to it. This principle can have no application to trespassers against the person	 nor to injuries to property	 real or personal	 unaccompanied by conversion or change of (1)[1965] 1Q.B.D.248	 (2) 18L. ed. 129	132 132 134. (3) ; 968 possession. Nor is the principle admitted in regard to conversions of personal property. Prior to Brown vs Wootton	 Cro. 73	 the English doctrine seems to have been the other way	 as shown by Kent	 in his Commentaries	 2 Kent	 Com. 388	 referring to Shepherd 's Touchstone	 Title	 Gift; and to Jenkins	 p. 109	 ease 88. We have already stated the only two principles upon which it rests. We apprehend that no sound jurist would attempt	 at this day	 to defend it solely on the ground of transit in rem judicatam. For while this principle	 as that other rule	 that no man shall be twice vexed for the same cause of action	 may well be applied in the case of a second suit against the same trespasser	 we do not perceive its force when applied to a suit brought for the first time against another trespasser in the same matter. But in all such cases	 what has the defendant in such second suit done to discharge himself from the obligation which the law imposes upon him	 to make compensation ? His liability must remain	 in morals and on principle	 until he does this. The judgment against his co trespasser does not affect him so as to release him on any equitable consideration. It may be said that neither does the satisfaction by his co trespasser	 or a release to his co trespasser do this; and that is true. But when the plaintiff has accepted satisfaction in full for the injury done him	 from whatever source it may come	 he is so far affected in equity and good conscience	 that the law will not permit him to recover again for the same damages. But it is not easy to see how he is so affected	 until he has received full satisfaction	 or that which the law must consider as such. We are	 therefore	 of opinion that nothing short of satisfaction	 or its equivalent	 can make good a plea of former judgment in trespass	 offered as 	a bar in an action against another joint trespasser	 who was not party to the first judgment." In India the English Law has been generally followed. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on Ram Kumar Singh vs Ali Husain(1). The facts in that case in brief were as follows. The plaintiff sued several defendants jointly to recover damages (Rs. 325/ ) in respect of an alleged assault committed on him by (1) All. 173	 175	 969 and accepted Rs. 25/ representing his proportionate share of damages. The High Court held: "The fact that one of several tortfeasors in the progress of a suit 'admits his liability ' as well as that of the other defendants and agrees to pay a sum of money in satisfaction of his liability does not exonerate the other defendants	 who may be rouged responsible for the acts complained of	 from liability. In the case of Brinsmead vs Harrison(1)	 one of the tort leasors was sued for damages for trover of a piano and damages were recovered as against him. In that case it was held that a suit against the other tortfeasor could not be sustained for the same cause of action	 notwithstanding the fact that the judgment already recovered remained unsatisfied. That is a very different case from the case before us. In the case before us all the tortfeasors were sued in one and the same suit and judgment was not recovered only against the party who had admitted his liability in the progress of the suit and had agreed to pay a sum of money in satisfaction of his liability. " This case was followed in Hat Krishna Lal vs Haji Qurban Ali(2). But in these cases the decree was not passed first against the tortfeasor admitting liability. The learned counsel for the respondent relies on Makhanlal Lolaram vs Panchamal Sheoprasad(5). It was held in that case that "an accord and satisfaction in favour of one joint tortfeasor operates in favour of them all. " Vivian Bose	 A.J.C.	 observed: "An accord and satisfaction in favour of one joint tortfeasor operates in favour of them all; ; 9 QB 819	 and ; 	 Odgers on Libel and Slander	 Edn. 6	 p. 521	 Ratanlal on Torts	 Edn. 10	 p. 71. The basis of these decisions is that where the injury is one and indivisible it can give rise to but one cause of action. Consequently if satisfaction is accepted 'as full and complete and against one person it operates with respect to the entire cause of action. " In Shiva Sagar Lal vs Mata Din(4) the facts as stated in the head note	 in brief	 were: "Plaintiff filed a suit to recover damages for malicious prosecution 'against five defendants of whom defendant 1 was a minor. It was alleged that the other defendants had instigated defendant 1 to make a complaint against (1) (1871 72) L.R.7 C.P. 547. (2) Luck. (3) A.I.R. 1934 Nag. 226	 227. (4) A.I.R. 1949 All. 970 the plaintiff. Subsequently	 the plaintiff filed an application that there had been a settlement between him and defendant 1 and he had consequently released him. The application was allowed and defendant 1 was discharged. " Following Duck vs Mayeu(1) it was held that the discharge ' of defendant 1 amounted merely to a covenant not to sue him and not to a release of all the joint tortfeasors. The English Courts adopted this line of reasoning in order to soften the rigour of the common law	 but in the present case it cannot be said that the compromise amounted to a covenant not to sue	 as a decree was passed. It seems to us	 however	 that the rule of common law prior to Brown vs Wooton(2) and the rule adopted by the United States Supreme Court is more in consonance with equity	 justice and good conscience. In other words	 the plaintiff must have received full satisfaction or which the law must consider as such from a tortfeasor before the other joint tortfeasors can rely on accord and satisfaction. This rule would recognise that the liability of tortleasors is joint and several. What is full satisfaction will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. For example	 the acceptance of Rs. 25/ in the case of Ram Kumar Singh vs Ali Hussain(3) would not be a case of full satisfaction. In this case an apology was received from the defendant Rabadi and accepted and embodied in 'a decree. This cannot be treated to be a full satisfaction for the tort alleged to have been committed by the respondents defendants. But this must be treated as 'an election on the part of the plaintiffs to pursue their several remedy against the defendant Rabadi. The learned counsel for the respondents urges that if a decree is passed against them for damages	 the defendant Rabadi	 who compromised	 would be liable to contribute in accordance with the rule laid down in Dharni Dhar vs Chandra Shekhar(4) in which it was held that the rule in Merry weather vs Nixon(5) did not apply in India. It is not necessary to decide whether the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court lays down the law correctly	 because even if it is assumed that this is the law in India it would not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. ' In the result the appeal is allowed	 the judgment 	and decree of the High Court set aside and the case remitted to the Trial Court. He shall dispose of the suit in accordance with this judgment and law. No order as to costs. V.P.S. Appeal allowed. (1) (2) ; (3) All. 173 (4) I.L.R. [1952] 1 All. 759 (F.B.).

A suit for damages was filed on the allegations that the plaintiffs and defendants were all members of an association and that the defendants committed a tort against the plaintiffs by conspiring and preventing the plaintiffs from being elected to the office of trustees of the association. One of the defendants tendered an unconditional apology which was accepted by the plaintiffs and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The other defendants	 thereafter	 filed written statements contending that the release of one of the defendants from his joint liability as a tort lessor extinguished the plaintiff 's rights against the remaining defendants and raised questions regarding valuation and court fees. The trial court took up the issue regarding court fees	 held there was a deficiency and granted time to the plaintiffs to make good the deficiency. The plaintiffs	 instead	 applied for amendment of the plaint and the trial court allowed the application. The High Court	 in revision filed by the defendants gave appropriate directions regarding payment of court fee. The High Court	 also decided	 with the consent of both sides	 that the decree against one of the defendants namely	 the compromise decree	 was complete accord and satisfaction and that the cause of action against all the defendants being one and indivisible	 the decree operated as a bar against further proceedings against the remaining defendants. In appeal to this Court	 it was contended that the subject matter of revision before the High Court being only the order of the trial court regarding court fee	 the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide any other point. HELD: (1) The High Court had no power to decide any other issue even if the parties had consented. The order of the High Court could not be justified under section 24	 Civil Procedure Code	 because	 it was not a case of the High Court withdrawing the case to itself and trying the same. [9 '63 D E] (2) The High Court having decided the question of maintainability of the suit against the. other defendants	 the trial court would feel handicapped if the matter were to be remitted to it. The appropriate procedure is for this Court to decide the question. [963 E F] (3) The rule which is in consonance with equity	 justice and good conscience and which also recognises that the liability of tort feasors is joint and several	 is that	 before the other joint tort feasors can rely on accord and satisfaction	 a plaintiff must have received full satisfaction or L6Sup. CI/69 10 960 what the law must consider as such from one of the tort feasors. What is full satisfaction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. [970 C E] In the present case	 the apology which was embodied in a decree could not be treated as full satisfaction for the tort alleged to have been committed by the defendants. But it must be treated as an election on the part of the plaintiffs to pursue their several remedy against the defendant tendering the apology. [970 E F] Ram Kumar Singh vs Ali Husain	 All. 173	 Makhanlal Lolaram vs Panchamal Sheoprasad	 A.I.R. ; Har Krishna Lal vs Haji Qurban Ali	 Luck. 284 and Shiva Sagar Lal vs Mata Din A.I.R. 1949 All. 105; and English and American Law	 referred to.