Rajamannar, C.J.-This is an appeal against the judgment of Mack, J., in C.M.A. No, 415 of 1951. It arises out of certain proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board, Kumbakonam. On 12th April, 1942, an agreement was reached between a creditor of the 13th respondent in E.P. Mo. 354 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai and the 13th respondent, in and by which it was provided that a sum of Rs. 1,140 should be paid to the creditor and the said amount was charged on property belonging to the debtor. Under section 14 (2) of the Debt, Conciliation Act, the said agreement was directed to be registered and it was accordingly registered on 18th April, 1942. Under section 14 (2) on such registration the agreement takes effect as if it were a decree of a civil Court and executable as such:

The creditor, in whose favour the agreement was made, assigned her rights to one Krishna Iyer, the contesting respondent in this appeal. The assignment in his favour was recognised in the Kumbakonam Sub-Court on 3rd March, 1944. It is common ground that the said Krishna Iyer filed several petitions in the Kumbakonam Sub-Court for transmission of this decree to the Sub-Court, Madurai, within whose jurisdiction the property charged was situate. Unfortunately, though transmission was ordered by the Kumbakonam Sub-Court, no steps were apparently taken for proceeding with the further execution till eventually the contesting respondent filed E.P. 238 of 1948 in the Sub-Court, Madurai, after the decree had been transmitted to that Court by the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. Then the appellant took the objection that the execution petition was not maintainable because the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, had no jurisdiction even to transmit the decree to the Sub-Court, Madurai, for execution. This objection was upheld and the E. P. was dismissed. Thereupon the respondent filed E.P. 354 of 1949 in the Sub-Court, Madurai, on 17th January, 1949. He also filed an appeal against the order dismissing E.P. 238 of 1948. In the appeal, the learned District Judge of Madurai held that though the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for transmission of the decree, the E.P. 238 of 1948 might itself be treated as an independent execution petition. The substantial objection to E. P. 354 of 1949 was that it was barred by limitation.

The agreement had been registered on 18th April, 1942 and it provided for a period of nine months for the payment of the debt. E.P. 238 of 1948 was filed on 8th March, 1948, that is beyond three years but within six years of the date of the agreement. The application out of which this appeal arises was filed within six years of the period fixed for payment under the agreement. On behalf of the assignee-decree-holder it was contended before the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai that he was entitled to the benefit of the provision in the second column of Article 182 of the Limitation Act which provides for a period of six years when a certified copy of a decree is registered. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the contention of the decree-holder and allowed the execution to proceed. The 13th respondent in the E.P. filed an appeal to this Court, C.M.A. No. 415 of 1951. It came on for disposal before Mack, J., and before the learned Judge the point of limitation was again pressed on behalf of the appellant. The learned Judge held against the appellant on two grounds viz., (1) that the provision in the second column of Article 182 of the Limitation Act for a period of six years for the execution of a registered decree would apply to this case ; and (2) that the respondent-decree-holder would be entitled to the benefit of section 14, sub-section (2) of the Limitation Act. He therefore dismissed the appeal.

Mr. S. Ramachandra Ayyar, learned counsel for the appellant, 13th respondent in the E.P., canvassed the correctness of both these findings of the learned Judge As regards the first point, viz., the applicab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document