Bapna, J.—This is a second appeal in execution proceedings. 2. Kishanlal son of Sedhmal and Shridhar son of Shivprasad obtained a decree against Bhim Singh on the 28th May, 1925, for recovery of Rs. 712/-besides costs and interest. The decree-holders put their decree in execution, and the last application filed by them was so done on 25th January, 1932, which was dismissed on 16th March, 1933, without recovery of any amount. Kishanlal died, and an application was filed on 24th March, 1933, by Gulzarilal as successor in interest of Kishanlal, one of the decree-holders. This application was also dismissed without recovery of any amount on the 14th of August, 1933. The next application was filed by Gulzarilal on behalf of Gindorilal and Madanlal, minor sons of Kishanlal. as their guardian as also on his own behalf on the 4th of May, 1935. Similar applications for execution were presented on 7.2.36 & 8.3.39. The next application was filed on the 2nd of April, 1942, by Gulzarilal and in an accompanying application it was mentioned that the heirs of Kishanlal were his two minor sons Gindorilal and Madanlal under the guardianship of Gulzarilal, and that the names of Gulzari-lal and Badrilal as legal representatives of Kishanlal had wrongly been made out earlier. It was also stated that Shridhar had also died in the mean wile, and his sons were Murarilal, major, and Kishorilal, minor, under the guardianship of Murarilal, whose names had also been entered in the applications. This application was also made by Gulzarilal. Further applications lor execution were submitted on l.2.44, 21.1.47, 17.3.47, and 21st February, 1950. The judgment-debtor appeared in response to the notice on the last application, and made an objection that the application was barred by time. It was urged that the application of 24th March, 1953, was presented by Gulzarilal, who was not competent to do so, and the next application of 4th May, 1935, became barred by time, if the application of 24th March, 1933, was taken out of consideration. It may be mentioned that on the 4th of May, 1935, the Limitation Act, which was in force in Jaipur, provided for a period of three years for presenting an application for execution from the list date of execution. The amendment permitting a period of three years from the date of the last order on the previous application was made on the 5th of May, 1937 (vide Jaipur Gazette of 15th May. 1937). The trial court accepted the plea of the judgment-debtor, and dismissed the application of 21st February, 1950, as barred by limitation.

3. On appeal, the learned District Judge was of opinion, firstly, that Gulzarilal was mukhtar-am of Kishanlal and the sons of Kishanlal were living with him. and that he had filed the application of 24th March, 1933, as guardian of Gindorilal and Madanlal, and, therefore, the application was properly presented. He also observed that in the application of 1st February, 1944, one of the cows of the judgment debtor had been attached, and personal service of the application under Older XXI, Rule 22, had been made on the judgment-debtor, and, therefore, the objection of the judgment-debtor in respect of the application of 21st February, 1950, was barred on the principle of constructive res judicata. He relied on Adhilakshmi Animal vs. Srinivasa Goundan (1) and Promotha Nath Daw vs. Habu Mia(2).

4. The judgment-debtor died in the meanwhile, and his legal representative Surjan Singh has come in second appeal.

5. The finding of the learned District Judge that Gulzarilal had made the application on 24th March, i933, as guardian of Gindorilal and Madanlal is contrary to the record. That application does not even mention the names of Gindorilal and Madanlal, but clearly mentions the names of Badrilal and Gulzarilal as decree-holders in place of Kishanlal, the application itself being filed by Gulzarilal alone. The statement of Gulzarilal that the decree related to the assets of the joint Hindu family is also obviously

Click Here to Read the rest of this document