Govinda Menon, J.-The facts have been very elaborately stated in the judgment of the lower Court and need not be repeated here. The sole question for consideration is whether, pending an application for execution of a decree, if a third party claimant puts in a claim petition on the ground that the properties attached by the decree-holder do not belong to the judgment-debtor, the decree can be executed or whether the pendency of the claim petition operates as stay of the execution of the decree in order to attract the provisions of section 15(1) of the Limitation Act. On the question as to whether for the application of section 15 of the Limitation Act the period of 12 years prescribed under section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be deemed to be the period of limitation there has been some controversy. In Subbarayan v. Natarajan1, a Bench of this Court has held that the period prescribed under section 48, Civil Procedure Code, is not a period of limitation. This view has not been accepted by the two. learned Judges, King and Krishnaswamy Ayyangar, JJ., in Kalyanasundaram Piliai v. Vythihnga Vanniar2. In a recent Full Bench case in Kandaswami Pillai v. Kannappa Chetiy3, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document