AMARESWARI RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Misc. Second Appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The question pertains to limitation. Both the Courts have held that the Execution Petition is time barred. The decree-holder is the petitioner.

( 2 ) A few dates are relevant. The decree is dated 2-8-58. The Execution Petition is filed on 7-7-72. The contention of the decree-holder was that the decree was executable only on production of succession certificate and since the succession certificate was produced on 20-7-1980 (sic) limitation starts from that date as the decree became executable on that and not from 28-8-1958 when the judgment was delivered and decree was passed. The trial Court rejected this contention and the same was affirmed by the Appellate Court. The second point argued on behalf of the decree-holder was that since the decree dt. 28-8-1958 was amended on 6-1-1961, limitation starts from 6-1-61 and not from the date of the decree. The contention was also rejected by both the Courts.

( 3 ) MR. N. Rajeswara Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same contentions before me. As can be seen from the facts, the decree was passed on 28-1-1958 and th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document