GANGADHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are filed against the judgement of Punnayya, J. in AAO, Nos. 76 and 77 of 1975.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed the suit O. S. No. 93/1957 for the partition of the plaint A Schedule properties into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share for her, after setting aside the alienations made by her son, the 1st defendant, in favour of defendants 2 to 5. The suit was decreed on 29-7-1958 and the alienations were set aside. The 2nd defendant, an alienee, preferred the appeal A. S. No. 506/1969 in the High Court, but it was dismissed on 26-9-1963. Then he filed L. P. A. No. 104/1964. It was also dismissed on 30-10-1969 with some directions. The decree-holder filed E. P. No. 39/1973 on 23-4-1973 against the 2nd defendant for recovery of costs. She also filed E. P. No. 151/1973 for recovery of mesne profits.

( 3 ) IN E. P. No. 39/1973 the 2nd defendant has raised an objection that it was barred by limitation under Art. 136 of the Limitation Act. The learned Subordinate Judge negatived that contention. Punnayya, J. also held that the petition was not barred by limitation. In E. P. No. 151/1973, the 2nd defendant contended that it item No. 1 was allotted to the share of the 1st defendant pursuant to the direction of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal , there would be no need for him to pay any mesne profits. That contention was negatived by the executing court as well as Punnayya J.

( 4 ) FIRST, we will take up L. P. A. No. 3/1977. It is submitted by Sri. Y. Suryanaryana, the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no stay during the pendency of the appeal and the Letters Patent Appeal in the High Court and, therefore, E. P. No. 39/1973 is barred by limitation. As stated by us already, the suit was decreed on 29-7-1958. E. P. was filed on 23-4-1973. The Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 30-10-1969. It is true there was no stay in the High Court.

( 5 ) THE relevant Article that governs the case is Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It provides that for the execution of any decree or order becomes enforceable. Sri. Y. Suryanaryana has submitted that the decree become enforceable on 29-7-1958 itself, since there was no stay and the decree-holder should have executed the decree within twelve years from that date, and the present petition filed on 23-4-1973 is beyond twelve years and, therefore, it is barred by limitation. To reinforce his argument he has referred to Art. 182 of the limitation Act, 1908, which provides that if there is an appeal. Emphasising on the absence of similar words in Art. 136 of the present Limitation Act, Sri Suryanaryana has contended that the period of limitation cannot be reckoned from the date of the decree in the Letters Patent Appeal when there was no stay in that appeal.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sri Subba Reddy appearing for the respondent has submitted that S. 48 C. P. C. was repealed by the Limitation Act, 1963 and was re-enacted in Art. 136 and the decree becomes enforceable only when the appeal has been disposed of.

( 7 ) ART. 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908 provided that for the execution of a decree or order on any civil Court not provided for by Art. 183 or by S. 48 of the Civil P. C. 1908 the period of limitation was three years, or where a certified copy of the decree order has been registered, six years. The period of limitation begins to run from the date of the decree or order, or, where there has been an appeal, the date of the final decree or order of the appellate court or the with drawl of the appeal.

( 8 ) S. 48 of the Civil P. C. runs as follows:-"48. (1) Where an application to execute a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of twelve years from- (a) the date of the decree sought to be executed, or (b) where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the del

Click Here to Read the rest of this document