Chandra Reddi, J.- The decree-holder in O.S. No. 15 of 1926 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chittoor is the appellant in all these appeals. In order to appreciate the points arising in these appeals it is necessary to state briefly the facts leading up to these appeals.

The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, against his uncle the 1st defendant for partition and separate possession of his share in the family properties and for other incidental reliefs. The second defendant who was the daughter of the 1st defendant was impleaded as she had a claim for maintenance against the family properties. This suit ended in a compromise decree on 8tb October, 1928, and under the terms of the compromise the plaintiff was to be paid a sum of Rs. 6,000 in lieu of his claim, Rs. 4,000 being payable on the 29th of Ani, 1934 and the balance to be paid in two instalments subsequently. It was provided in the compromise decree that for the due performance of the decree a charge should be created over the suit properties including the three items of property in dispute which lie within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Nilgiris.

In order to proceed against the properties in question several petitions were filed for transmission of the decree to the Sub-Court, Nilgiris and for execution against these three items but all of them proved infructuous. Ultimately the execution petition No. 195 of 1948 giving rise to these appeals was filed on 22nd June, 1946. No orders were passed till the 13th of July, 1946. Meanwhile the appellant presented an execution petition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris on the 12th of July, 1946. As already stated the order transmitting the decree to the Sub-Court, Nilgiris, for execution of the decree was made only on the 13th. On the same day there was an order by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris, directing the return of the execution petition for the production of a copy of the decree. But we have no evidence as to the exact time at which either the order for transmission of the decree was made by the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, or the latter order by the Sub-Court, Nilgiris, or as to when the papers were taken back by the appellants in pursuance of the order for return. The importance of the exact time of these acts will become apparent when we deal with the question of the validity of the presentation of the execution petition in the Sub-Court, Nilgiris.

The execution petition was re-presented on the 19th of July, 1946, with an endorsement that the decree will be filed later on. In the course of these execution proceedings the properties in question were being brought to sale. It may be necessary to state here that the 2nd defendant sold these properties in the years 1939-40 for debts binding upon the estate of the 1st defendant who died prior thereto. The persons who acquired interest in these properties by virtue of the sales came forward with claim petitions.

In support of their claims two contentions were urged. One was that the present execution petition was barred under section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code firstly for the reason that the execution petition now presented was beyond 12 years of the date of the decree, that as no time was fixed for the payment of these amounts in the original decree itself limitation began to run from 8th October, 1928, the date of the decree and the date 13th July, 1934, fixed for the payment of Rs. 4,000 was inserted only by way of amendment asked for in I.A. No. 33 of 1942 long after the decree got barred and the judgment-debtors ceased to have any interest in the properties and would not therefore affect them. Secondly even assuming that the decree was not barred there was no valid presentation of the execution petition within 12 years as it was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris, prior to the passing of the order for transmission and receipt of the decree by the Court to which the decree was transferred for e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document