Back
1981 Supreme(All) 186
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Satish Chandra, C. J., K. N. Seth, K. C. Agarwal, K. P. Singh and Murlidhar, JJ.
SOHAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
RAGHUNATH PRASAD - Respondents
Civil Revn. 546 Of 1968
Decided On : 03/13/1981
N.B.Nigam, Prakash Gupta, RAJESHWARI
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Sohan Lal vs. Raghunath Prasad:
Case Background and Procedure - The case involves decree-holder applications in revision directed against the judgment of the learned civil judge at Jhansi, which dismissed an execution application as barred by time (!) . - The matter was initially heard by a single judge, who referred it to a larger bench due to conflicting views on whether a judgment-debtor is precluded by the doctrine of constructive res judicata from raising a limitation objection (!) . - A Full Bench of three judges subsequently held that it could not overrule another Full Bench decision (Genda Lals case) and referred the matter to this Full Bench of five judges (!) .
Facts of the Execution Proceedings - A decree was made on 30th October 1954 based on an arbitration award in favor of Sohan Lal against Shyam Lal (!) . - The first execution application was filed on 6th August 1956, transferred to Mathura, and dismissed for non-satisfaction on 24th August 1957 (!) . - A second execution application was filed on 14th March 1966. During the proceedings, multiple objections were filed by third parties claiming ownership of specific properties (!) , (!) . - The judgment-debtor died during the pendency of the second execution application, and his heirs were substituted but did not file objections (!) . - The execution court dismissed the second application on 18th December 1967, holding that it was barred by limitation because the first application was dismissed in 1957, making the six-year period under Article 182 of the Limitation Act expired (!) .
Legal Arguments and Limitation Period - The decree-holder argued that the second application was within twelve years of the decree date (1954), citing Section 48 of the CPC (!) . - The court rejected this, stating that Section 48 does not supersede the Limitation Act; an execution application must be filed within three years from the date of disposal of the last execution application under Article 182 of the Limitation Act (!) , (!) . - Consequently, the second application filed in 1966 was time-barred as the limitation expired on 24th August 1960 (!) , (!) .
Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata and Third Party Objections - The core legal issue was whether the judgment-debtor or their representatives were barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata from raising the plea of limitation after failing to appear in the first execution proceedings (!) . - The court found that while the judgment-debtor's heirs did not object, the four sets of objectors who filed objections were not the judgment-debtor nor his representatives (!) , (!) . - Two sets of objectors (Madhu Kanal and Bhuvanendu Ariaria) claimed title paramount (bought from non-judgment-debtors) and were not bound by the doctrine of constructive res judicata (!) . - Two other sets of objectors (Sharmas and Gupta) were transferees who purchased the property after the limitation period for execution had expired (post-August 1960). Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (doctrine of lis pendens), such transferees are not bound by the decree as the pendency ended when execution became time-barred (!) , (!) , (!) . - Therefore, the doctrine of constructive res judicata did not apply to these third-party objectors, allowing them to validly raise the plea of limitation (!) , (!) .
Final Decision - The revisions were allowed in part. Properties Nos. 110 to 128 (subject to objections) were released from the sale proceedings in favor of the respective objectors (!) . - The execution court was directed to confirm the sale of the remaining properties (Nos. 102 to 109 and the ice factory) for which no objections were filed, as the court is liable to confirm the sale where no valid objection exists under Order XXI, Rule 92 of the CPC (!) , (!) .
( 1 ) THESE are decree-holders applications in revision, directed against the judgment of the learned civil Judge, Jhansi. dismissing the execution application as barred by time.
( 2 ) WHEN the revisions came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, it was submitted that the iudgment-debtor was precluded by the doctrine of constructive res iudicata from raising the objection that the execution was barred by limitation. It was argued that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Genda Lals case (1935 All LJ 1189) : (AIR 1936 All 21) (FB) laying down the proposition that the iudgment-de-btor was competent to raise the plea of limitation at any time during the pendency of the execution application was not the correct view of law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goenkas case (AIR 1953 SC 65) and Prem Latas case (AIR 1970 SC 1525 ). The attention of the learned single Judge was drawn to three Full Bench decisions of the Hyderabad, Venkappa v. Lakshmikant Rao. (AIR 1956 Hyderabad 7), Orissa, jagannath Ram-anui Rai Deb v. Lakshmi Naravan Tri-pathi. (AIR 1960 Orissa 197) and Patna high Courts Baiinath Prasad Sah v. Ramphal Sahni. (AIR 1962 Pat 72 ). The learned single judge felt some difficulty in distinguishing the said cases or reconciling the conflict of opinion. He observed :
"as the only point in the instant cases relates to the decision of the obiection relating to limitation of the execution. I refer these cases to a larger Bench for decision. "
( 3 ) THE revisions were laid before a Full Bench of three Judges. The Full Bench held that it was not competent to overrule another Full Bench of three Judges in Genda Lals case. It was hence desirable that the matter be considered by a larger Bench. That is how the matter has come up before this Full Bench of five Judges.
( 4 ) SHYAM Lal. Kishan Lal and Kan-haiya Lal were three brothers. Shyam Lal on 25th June. 1944, took a loan from Sohanlal. the present applicant and de-posited title deeds of some properties as security. Certain arbitration proceedings followed, in which an award was made on 10th March, 1954. allowing the claim of Sohan Lal for Rs. one lac with three per cent interest against shyam-lal. On 30th October, 1954. the award was made a rule of the court and a decree followed.
( 5 ) ON 6th August. 1956. Sohan Lal, the decree-holder filed an execution ap-plication in the courts at Jhansi where the decree had been passed. In due course the decree was transferred to the courts at Mathura for execution. At Mathura the execution was dismissed for non-satisfaction on 24th August, 1957.
( 6 ) THE decree-holder on 14th March, 1966. filed a second application for execution. This was registered as No. 14 of 1966. On 26th March, 1966. the court directed notice to issue to the iudgment-debtor. On 30th April. 1966. the court passed the following order :-
"case called out. Sri Sanyal for decree-holder present. Judgment-debtor absent despite service. Proceed ex parte. Property is under pledge by virtue of award. It amounts to a charge or mortgage. No fresh attachment is necessary. Now sale proceedings have to be taken. Decree-holder to take steps for service under Order XXI, Rule 66 C. P. C. for 7-5-1966. "
( 7 ) ON 16th July, 1966. the court passed the following order :-
"notice served. No obiection filed. Statement under Order XXI, Rule 66 is confirmed. Further steps by 23rd July, 1966. "
( 8 ) ON 23rd July. 1966, the court directed issuance of the sale proclamation fixing 3rd October. 1966.
( 9 ) ON 1st October. 1966, an obiection was filed by one Madhu Kanal. H9 claimed ownership of a portion of the property, which was the subiect-matter of sale, by transfer from Kanhaiya Lal one of the brothers of iudgment-debtor Shyam Lal. Madhu Kanal also filed an application for stay of sale. The court ordered :-
"i see no sufficient reason to stay sale which is for 3-10-66. Confirmation of sale may be stayed to safeguard his interest. "
Notice was directed to
