The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the starting point of limitation for the execution of a decree under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on the final decree and the actions of the parties involved.

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

O.S.No.288 of 1981 on the file of the III Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, was a suit for partition instituted by A.Suriya Narayanan against his brothers A.Pitchai Chettiar and A.Deivendran Chettiyar and four other persons. The plaintiff wanted declaration and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit property. Preliminary Decree was passed on 26.11.1983. I.A.No.398 of 1984 was filed for passing final decree. In the said final decree proceeding, the Advocate Commissioner filed report and plan dividing the suit property into 'A' schedule, 'B' schedule and 'C' schedule and 'E' schedule. Final decree was passed on 17.02.1989 in I.A.No.398 of 1984 allotting the shares of the plaintiff Suriya Narayanan. A.S.No.1483 of 1988 questioning the Preliminary Decree was dismissed on 25.08.1999.

2. The contesting respondent herein, namely, Deivendran Chettiar filed I.A.No.146 of 2000 to furnish stamp papers for engrossing the final decree and the same was allowed on 23.12.2003. He later filed I.A.No.614 of 2012 for allotting 'B' schedule property and the same allowed on 17.09.2012. He filed E.P.No.58 of 2013 seeking physical delivery and realising that he cannot ask for such a relief, did not press the same. Respondents 1 to 4 herein thereafter filed E.P.No.20 of 2016 for symbolic delivery. The executing Court ordered symbolic delivery on 28.07.2017 and the same was effected by affixture on 11.09.2017. This is questioned in this Civil Revision petition at the instance of the fifth defendant in the suit, namely, Pushpammal.

3. As already pointed out, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 had claimed 1/3rd share each over the suit property. Pitchai Chettiar had sold 'A' schedule property that was allotted to him in favour of the sons of the Revision petitioner. Likewise, Suriyanarayanan, the original plaintiff had sold 'C' schedule and 'E' schedule properties to the sons of the Revision petitioner. Thus, except 'B' schedule property that was allotted to Deivendran Chettiar, the remaining portions of the suit property have already come to be vested in the family of the Revision petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner raised very many contentions, questioning the order passed by the executing Court directing symbolic delivery. His foremost contention is that the execution petition filed by the first respondent herein is barred by limitation. He pointed out that as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, 12 years has been prescribed as the period for the execution of any decree, other than a decree granting mandatory injunction. The final decree in this case was passed as early as on 17.02.1989. He also contended that the first respondent has been adopting dubious methods to overcome the limitation bar. He took me through the contents of E.P.No.20 of 2016 filed by the first respondent and his three sons. It is seen therefrom that the contesting respondents herein have sought to execute the final decree dated 17.09.2012. But the Court below has given a finding that the final decree was passed in favour of the Deivendran Chettiar on 23.12.2003. An order was passed on the said date in I.A.No.146 of 2000 filed by the Deivendran Chettiar. The Deivendran Chettiar had filed I.A.No.146 of 2000 to furnish stamp papers in order to engross the final decree thereon. On 23.12.2003, the said Interlocutory application was allowed.

5. A mere look at the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.146 of 2000 would show that the parties were under the clear impression that as per the final decree dated 17.02.1989, 'B' schedule property has been allotted to the Deivendran Chettiar. In fact none of the parties were in any doubt in this regard. A.Pitchai Chettiar and his two brothers filed O.S.No.434 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, against some third parties and in the said suit, I.A.No.203 of 1999 was filed. In paragraph No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the sa