JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 47 of the Civil P.C. against the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadiad, in Special Darkhast No.54 of 1968, dated 26th February, 1970.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:

This Darkhast is filed by respondent No.1, Patel Mohanbhai Nanabhai (original defendant No.1) against the appellant-plaintiff for execution of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.22 of 1951 - a partition suit between two brothers - on 15-3-1954. Respondent No.2 (original defendant No.2) was an alienee. We are not concerned with him in the present proceedings. Respondent No.1 sought to recover Rs.2,002/- plus the costs of the Darkhast, Rs.7.88 plus the interest amount of Rs.265/-. i.e. in all Rs.2,274.88 paise, from the appellant. Under clause 6 of the decree, the appellant had undertaken an obligation to pay Rs.1,001/- on the first occasion of the marriage of respondent No.1's son or daughter. Rs.1,001/- were also to be paid accordingly on the second occasion of such marriage. If these amounts are not paid, he has been given a right to recover the same from the moveable as well as immoveable properties of the appellant by execution of the decree.

3. In this Darkhast, several objections were raised by the appellant. One of them was that the Darkhast was time-barred. It was his contention that he was not informed of the marriages having taken place and hence he was not entitled to pay the amounts claimed. The decree cannot be executed as it is vague and uncertain. Other provisions of the said decree which were to be complied with by the Darkhastdar, have not been complied by him and. therefore, he cannot execute this part of the decree which he has sought to execute.

4. The Executing Court held that the Darkhast was not time-barred and the decree is executable. In that view of the matter, it ordered the Darkhast to proceed.

5. Being dissatisfied with that order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal to this Court.

6. Mr. S.K. Zaveri, appearing for the appellant, made the following submissions:

(1) Whether the execution is barred by limitation.

(2) Whether the failure to observe the Vahevar militates against the execution.

(3) Whether the decree is not executable as it is vague and uncertain.

(4) Respondent No.1's failure to comply with the reciprocal promises will be a bar to execution.

(5) Disputed clause (6) being outside the subject-matter of the partition suit, can be enforced by filing a suit on the basis of the agreement and not by execution of the decree.

7. To appreciate the rival contentions urged at the Bar, I first propose to refer to different clauses of the decree. Clause (1) recites that the alienation made by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of lot No.9, is confirmed and respondent No.2 is recognised as the owner of that field.

8. Clause (2) recites that the rest of the properties are divided between the two brothers, viz., the appellant and respondent No.1, as stated in the paras that follow and a person in whose favour those properties are allotted, becomes the owner of those properties.

9. Clause (3) recites the properties allotted to the share of the plaintiff-appellant. Clause (4) recites the properties allotted to the share of respondent No.1 (defendant No.1). Clause (5) recites that defendant No.1 (respondent No.1) has to pay Rs.250/- to the plaintiff within one month from the date of the decree, which is an excess amount, on considering the prices of the properties allotted to each other.

10. Clause (6) which is material for our purposes, reads:

"Plaintiff has to pay to respondent No.1 Rs.2,002/- as stated hereunder:

(1) When there is first occasion of marriage at the place of respondent No.1, of his son or daughter, on that occasion the plaintiff-appellant has to pay Rs.1,001/-. Similarly, when there is such second occasion of marriage of his son or daughter at his place, on that occas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document