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

1987 Supreme(Cal) 346

High Court Of Calcutta
A. M. Bhattacharjee, Nirendra Krishna Mitra, Ajit Kumar Nayak
BHOLANATH KARMAKAR - Appellant
Versus
MADANMOHAN KARMAKAB - Respondent
Civil Order 2675  Of  1983
Decided On : 10/30/1987

Advocates Appeared:
Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty, KAMAL KRISHNA CHAKRAVARTY, P.B.DAS, SAUMENDRA KUMAR GHOSH, SWAPAN KUMAR NANDY

A decree for partition does not become enforceable within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 until engrossed on the requisite stamp papers and the period of limitation, therefore, can not begin to run until such stamp papers are furnished.

Headnote:

PARTITION - DECREE - ENFORCEABILITY - LIMITATION - ARTICLE 136 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - STARTING POINT.

Fact of the Case:

The issue in this case was to determine when a final decree for partition of immovable properties becomes enforceable within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so that the limitation period prescribed thereunder would begin to run.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that a final decree for partition does not become enforceable within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 until engrossed on the requisite stamp papers and the period of limitation, therefore, can not begin to run until such stamp papers are furnished.

Issues: 1. When does a final decree for partition become enforceable within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. Whether a decree for partition becomes enforceable on the date of its being made or pronounced by the Court or when the same is engrossed on requisite stamp papers?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the provisions of Section 85 of the Stamp Act, 1899, which states that a decree for partition can not be admitted in evidence and can not in any way be acted upon by or in any Court unless the same is duly stamped and, therefore, does not become enforceable until engrossed on stamp papers. 2. The court also referred to the provisions of Rule 6a of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976, and held that it would not apply to a decree for partition, which can not at all be drawn up and has, therefore, not been drawn up by the Court for the requisite stamp papers not having been furnished by the parties.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order holding that the execution of the decree for partition was not barred by time.

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE question involved in this revisional application referred to this Special Bench is when a final decree for partition becomes enforceable within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 so that the period of limitation prescribed, therefore, would begin to run thereunder shorn of details not necessary for our present purpose. Article 136 of the Limitation Act provides that "for the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction)", the period of limitation is 12 years and that the time from which that period would begin to run is "when the decree becomes enforceable. " If a final decree for partition of immovable properties becomes enforceable on the date of its being made or pronounced by the Court, as contended by the opposite parties, the execution in this case was rightly held to be barred by time and the revision must fail. If on the other hand such a decree does not become enforceable until the same is engrossed on requisite stamp papers, as urged by the petitioners, the impugned order holding the execution to be time barred was wrong and the revision must succeed.

( 2 ) WE have heard four days together, learned arguments advanced by Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury for the petitioners and by Mr. Ashoke Chakraborty for the opposite parties and we are satisfied that whatever might have been the position under Article 182 of the preceding Limitation Act of 1908, the question should not, in view of the expression used in Article 136 of the present Act of 1963, present any difficulty any more.

( 3 ) AS already noted, the terminus a quo for the period of limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act "is when the decree becomes enforceable. " A decree for partition is also an "instrument of partition" as defined in Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and is chargeable with stamp duty thereunder. Under Section 85 of the Stamp Act, such a decree for partition can not be admitted in evidence and can not in any way be acted upon by or in any Court unless the same is duly stamped and, therefore, does not become enforceable until engrossed on stamp papers. No citation should be necessary for such an obvious proposition, but yet reference, if need be, may be made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gour Chandra vs. Prasanna Das (65 CWN 748 at 745 ). The question as to when a decree for partition becomes enforceable within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot, in our view, be decided without reference to the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, referred to hereinabove.

( 4 ) IT is true, as pointed out by the Law Commission of India in its Third Report on the Limitation Act, 1908, on the basis of which the Law of Limitation was revised, recast and re-enacted in the shape of the present Act of 1963 (Section 17c, pages 64-65), that the date when a decree becomes enforceable "is usually the date of the decree" and under the provisions of Order 20, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment is pronounced". But, as already indicated, in the case of partition decree, the decree, even though already passed or made, can not, in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act, become enforceable unless drawn up and engrossed on stamp papers. Because of such decrees, which do not become enforceable on the dates of their being passed or made, the present Article 136 has used the expression "when the decree becomes enforceable" and has made the same the starting point of limitation, departing from the expression used in Article 182 of the preceding Limitation Act, 1908, whereunder the starting point was "the date of the decree". Therefore, under Article 136 of the present Limitation Act, the terminus a quo being the date "when the decree becomes enforceable", the period of limitation in respect of a partition decree can not being to run until it acquires immediate enforceabi


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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