SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Pat) 59

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Narayan JJ.
Hakim Md.Idris
Versus
Md.Kabir
Appeal From Original Order No. 106 of 1948 ;
Decided On : MARCH 20, 1950

The date of the decree is the date of the judgment as provided by Order 20, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:

LIMITATION - EXECUTION OF DECREE - DATE OF DECREE - COURT-FEE - PAYMENT OF COURT-FEE AFTER THREE YEARS - DECREE BARRED BY LIMITATION - CIVIL P. C. (1908), ORDER 20, RULE 7 - COURT-FEES ACT, SEC. 11.

Fact of the Case:

Appellant brought a suit for declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits with respect to 1/9th share of certain villages. The respondent admitted her claim. The appellant obtained a decree for possession and mesne profits on 9th February 1926. On 28th March 1934, the appellant filed an application for ascertainment of mesne profits from the respondent. The Subordinate Judge adjudicated the quantum of mesne profits on 8th March 1939 and directed that no decree would be prepared until the deficit court-fee was paid. The appellant paid the requisite amount of court-fee on 13th March 1945 and asked for a final decree for mesne profits. The respondent objected that the execution of the decree was time-barred. The Subordinate Judge upheld the objection and refused to prepare another final decree.

Finding of the Court:

The order of the Subordinate Judge dated 8th March 1939 was the final decree since it was the final adjudication between the parties as regards the quantum of mesne profits. The appellant was not warranted in asking the Subordinate Judge to prepare a fresh final decree on the date he paid the amount of court-fee. The decree was barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act.

Issues: Whether the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 8th March 1939 was the final decree?

Ratio Decidendi: The date of the decree is the date of the judgment as provided by Order 20, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. The order of the Subordinate Judge dated 8th March 1939 was the final decree since it was the final adjudication between the parties as regards the quantum of mesne profits. The appellant was not warranted in asking the Subordinate Judge to prepare a fresh final decree on the date he paid the amount of court-fee. The decree was barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment

Ramaswami, J.

1. This case has a long and complicated history; but the question posed for decision in this appeal liea within a short compass. The appellant brought the suit for a declaration of title, for possession and mesne profits with respect to 1/9th share of certain villages which belonged to her parents Fazl Imam and Bibi Zohra, The respondent who was her eldest brother admitted her claim. The other defendants effected a compromise with the appellant which was recorded by the Court. On 9th February 1926 the appellant obtained a decree for possession of her share and for mesne profits. It is not necessary to trace in detail the further stages of the litigitions. On 28th March 1934, the plaintiff filed an application for ascertainment of mesne profits from the respondent with respect to her share according to the preliminary decree. Mr. Bagchi who was the Subordinate Judge at the time issued notice to the parties, recorded evidence of witnesses and on 8th March 1939 adjudicated the quantum of mesne profits. The last paragraph of his order states :

"I would therefore allow mesne profits for the period of claim at Rs. 652 per year according to the previous finding (vide Ex. 1). Interest will be allowed at 6 per cant. per annum from the end of each year of claim up to date. The office will calculate the amount of court-fee payable by the plaintiff and no decree will be prepared till the same is paid. Pleaders fee at 5 per cent. is allowed on the amount of mesne profits decreed. The plaintiff will also get the costs of this application proportionate to her success."

2. On 21st April 1939, the appellant was informed that she ought to pay Rs. 292-8-0 being ascertained amount of court-fee. The appellant apparently took no action but on 13th March 1945 after a lapse of about six years the appellant paid the requisite amount of court-fee and asked that a final decree for mesne profits should be prepared. The respondent objected that the execution of the decree was time barred and that the decree cannot be revived by payment of court-fee after a lapse of more than three years. Mr. S.K. Prasad, Subordinate Judge, upheld the objection of the respondent holding that the final adjudication between the parties regarding the amount of mesne profits was given on 8th March 1939, which date must therefore be taken to be the date of the decree; and the question of court-fee payable was a mere matter of calculation and the Court had nothing further to adjudicate in order to determine the amount of court-fee. The Subordinate Judge therefore refused to prepare another final decree.

3. In support of this appeal, Dr. Qazi Nazrul Hassan addressed the argument that on 8th March 1939 the decree was passed on condition that the necessary court fee was deposited, that limitation would run from the date when proper decree was drawn after the amount of court-fee was paid. Learned counsel submitted that the Subordinate Judge ought to have drawn a fresh decree on the date the necessary court-fee was paid.

4. In my opinion, this argument is untenable. In this case, there can be no doubt that final adjudication between the parties regarding the amount of mesne profits wag given on 8th March 1939. That date must therefore be taken to be the date of the final decree. Learned counsel for the appellant laid stress on the last portion of the order of 8th March 1939, that is, "the office will calculate the amount of court-fee payable by the plaintiff and no decree will be prepared till the same is paid." It was argued that something more was necessary to be done by the Court in order to pass the final decree. But it is not possible to accept this argument. "Decree" as defined in Sec.2 (2), Civil P. C., 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."






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top