1. Application for execution of a preliminary decree for partition filed after thirty years seeking appointment of a court commissioner. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 429
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
Venu - Appellant
Versus
Ponnusamy Reddiar (Dead) Thr. LRs & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4187 of 2008
Decided On : 27-04-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Where parties did not affect preliminary decree by metes and bounds by mutual agreement; question of limitation does not arise in an application for appointment of court commissioner for final decree.
Where parties did not affect preliminary decree by metes and bounds by mutual agreement; question of limitation does not arise in an application for appointment of court commissioner for final decree.
Subject
Limitation - Execution of Preliminary Decree for Partition
Act Referred
Headnote
Limitation Act,1963 – Article 137 – Preliminary decree passed in partition suit – Parties not affecting preliminary decree by metes and bounds by mutual agreement – Application for appointment of court commissioner for final decree – Question of limitation does not arise. (Para 7, 8)
AIR 1948 Cal 363; AIR 1989 Ker 289; AIR 1999 P&H 102; AIR 1933 Peshawar 101(2); AIR 1983 Ori 121; 1967 (2) MLJ 342 – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
The application for execution of the decree was filed after thirty years of the preliminary decree, that too in the shape for the appointment of a court Commissioner so as to carry out the preliminary decree.
Findin g of the Court:
There is no merit in the appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an application for appointment of a court commissioner to execute a preliminary partition decree is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. A preliminary decree for partition does not dispose of the suit; proceedings continue until a final decree is passed, and no compromise was established. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. In partition suits, the suit continues until the final decree is passed; therefore, applications for final decree proceedings are not governed by the Limitation Act. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 9 )
6. Does the Limitation Act apply to applications for a final decree in a partition suit?
No. A preliminary decree does not completely dispose of the suit; the suit continues until the final decree is passed. An application for a final decree is merely a reminder to the court of its duty and is not an application contemplated under the Limitation Act. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
7. Is there a prescribed limitation period for the appointment of a court commissioner to carry out a preliminary decree for partition?
No. Since the suit continues until the preliminary decree culminates in a final decree, no limitation is prescribed for the appointment of a commissioner to work out the partition. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. Does a preliminary decree for partition extinguish the right to seek a final decree after a long period?
No. A preliminary decree crystallizes the rights of the parties, but the equities are worked out in final decree proceedings. Limitation does not run against the right to claim partition as per the preliminary decree until the final decree is passed. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
Only question raised in the present appeal is with respect to the limitation for execution of preliminary decree for partition. In the instant case, the application for execution of the decree was filed after thirty years of the preliminary decree. That too in the shape for the appointment of an court Commissioner so as to carry out the preliminary decree which has been passed on 23.11.1959. The application for the execution of the decree was filed on 3.10.1989 i.e. after thirty years.
2. Learned counsel appearing on the appellant has submitted that since the application had been filed for appointment of court commissioner, it ought to be governed by provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holder has urged that in substance an application has been filed for final decree proceedings and the cost of the final proceedings is paid then the preliminary decree is executed, thus application for execution of preliminary decree for partition could not be said to be barred by limitation.
4. In our opinion a preliminary decree for partition crystallizes the rights of parties for seeking partition to the extent declared, the equities remain to be worked out in final decree proceedings. Till partition is carried out and final decree is passed, there is no question of any limitation running against right to claim partition as per preliminary decree. Even when application is filed seeking appointment of Commissioner, no limitation is prescribed for this purpose, as such, it would not be barred by limitation, lis continues till preliminary decree culminates in to final decree.
5. The matter is no more res integra. The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in In Bhusan Chandra Mondal vs. Chhabimoni Dasi , AIR 1948 Cal 363 considered the question when a preliminary decree was passed in a suit for partition in courts, the court consider the applicability of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (in short 'the old Act') the court has laid down thus :-
“(6) Article 181 is the residuary Article relating to applications. In a mortgage suit it has been held that the application for a final decree has to be made within 3 years by reason of Article 181, Limitation Act. But those decisions are not helpful because O.34 R.4 Civil P.C. expressly requires the mortageee to make an application for a final decree, either for foreclosure or for sale. In a suit for partition and/or accounts a party need not make an application for making the decree final. After the preliminary decree is in such a suit has been passed it is the usual practice for the plaintiff to make an application for the appointment of the Commissioner but there were no legal bar in the court appointing the commissioner suo motu and asking the plaintiff to deposit the commissioner's fee in Court. If he does not deposit the fees any other party to the suit can do so and take upon himself the carriage of the proceedings if the plaintiff and none of the other parties make the deposit the fact that the court would not be able to dismiss the suit is, however, another matter.
(7) We therefore do not see our way to accept the petitioner's contentions on this point also.”
6. Similar is the view adopted by a Single judge of the High Court of Kerala in Laxmi & Ors. vs. A. Sankappa Alwa & Ors. [AIR 1989 Ker 289] the logic given by the High Court of Kerala that the preliminary decree does not completely dispose of the suit. The suit continues till the final decree is passed. Suit is pending till the passing of the final decree. There is no necessity of filing an application to apply for the final decree proceedings by litigants, then there is an obligation on the court for drawing up a final decree. The court had held thus :-
“15.I turn to consider the question of obligation of the Court and the parties after a preliminary decree is given in a partition suit. I do not propose to discuss that matter elaborately.
