Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1954
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
T.M. Mahendran
Versus
Muthuirulandi Thevar (Late) & Another
C.R.P (MD) No. 1093 of 2014 & M.P (MD) No. 2 of 2014
Decided on : 11-07-2014
For the Petitioner:H. Velavadhas, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K. Kumaravel, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Article 136 of the Limitation Act to the execution of a decree for specific performance.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Execution of Decree - Article 136 - Summary: The court considered the applicability of Article 136 of the Limitation Act to the execution of a decree for specific performance. It held that the Execution Petition was filed within 12 years from the date of the judgment and decree dismissing the first appeal, and therefore, only Article 136 was applicable to the execution of the decree for specific performance. The court also referenced relevant judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was decreed, and after an appeal, the decree was confirmed. Subsequently, the respondent filed an execution petition, which the petitioner sought to reject on the ground of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Execution Petition was filed within the applicable limitation period of 12 years from the date of the judgment and decree dismissing the first appeal. It held that only Article 136 of the Limitation Act was applicable to the execution of the decree for specific performance.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the limitation period under the Limitation Act to the execution of the decree for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 136 of the Limitation Act and relevant case law, which established that the Execution Petition was filed within the prescribed limitation period.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the District Munsif was directed to conclude the Execution Proceedings expeditiously.
1. The Judgment and Decree passed in E.A.No.12 of 2011 in E.P.NO.3 of 2009 in O.S.No.74 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mudukulathur dated 17.02.2012, is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.74 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mudukulathur against the father and mother of the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 21.09.1982. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1987. The father of the petitioner filed A.S.No.1104 of 1998 against the said judgment and decree. Meanwhile, the respondents filed E.P.No.13 of 1988. The said E.P. was closed on 09.04.1991 due to pendency of the first appeal. During the pendency of the first appeal, the petitioner's father died and the petitioner was impleaded as appellant and contested the case. The first appeal was dismissed on 13.03.2001, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower Court. Now, the respondent filed E.P.No.3 of 2009 for execution of the decree. Evidence was let in on behalf of the respondent.
3. While E.P. was posted for evidence, the petitioner filed E.A.No.12 of 2011 for rejection of the execution petition on the ground that the decree is barred by limitation and the same should have been filed within three years from the date of decree passed in A.S.No.1104 of 1998. He submitted that only Article 135 of Limitation Act is applicable to the facts of the case.
4. On the other hand, the respondent contended that only Article 136 is applicable to the facts of the case and Execution Petition is not barred by limitation.
5. The District Munsif considered all the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that only Article 136 of the Limitation Act is applicable and the decree could be executed within 12 years. The District Munsif taken note of the fact that after recording evidence of the respondent, the petitioner has come out with an execution application for rejection of Execution Petition at a belated stage. The District Munsif also held that there is no specific provision for dismissing the Execution Petition, as in the case of rejection of plaint. For these reasons, the District Munsif dismissed the execution application. Against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
6. Heard Mr. H.Velavadhas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Kumaravel, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the decree in question is a mandatory decree and Article 135 of Limitation Act 1963 only is applicable and Execution Petition ought to have been filed within three years from the date of dismissal of the first appeal. A reading of Article 135 of the Limitation Act reveals that it relates to execution of a decree of “Mandatory Injunction”. A decree granting specific performance cannot be termed as decree for mandatory injunction. Article 136 of the Limitation Act relates to executors of any decree other than a decree granting mandatory injunction. The period of limitation is 12 years. In the judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 2967 [ANTONYSAMI V. ARULANANDAM PILLAI] cited and relied on by the counsel for petitioner in Paragraph 10, it has been held that Article 136 of the Limitation Act is applicable to execution of decree for specific performance. Paragraph No.10 of the said judgment reads as follows:
“10. The provision of Limitation Act, 1963 which is applicable in this case is Article 136, which reads as under :
Description of application Period of Limitation Time for which period begins to run
136. For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil Court.
Twelve
years (When) the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making
