Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.LAXMAN, J.
Nagubandi Pullaiah and Another – Appellant
Versus
Madhuri Srinivas Rao (died) Per his LRs – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.4172 of 2009
Decided on : 11-10-2022
Limitation Act - Execution of Decree - Articles 135 & 136 - The court discussed the application of Articles 135 and 136 of the Limitation Act in the context of enforcing a decree granting a mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. The judgment highlighted the inseparability of reliefs and the larger limitation prescribed for the main relief, emphasizing that the larger limitation is the foundation to decide whether the execution petition is within time or not.
Fact of the Case:
The Civil Revision Petition was filed against the dismissal of the execution petition for enforcement of a judgment and decree. The decree holders obtained a decree for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction for removal of structures. The Executing Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the execution of the decree for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation, leading to the dismissal of the petition for recovery of possession as well.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the larger limitation prescribed for the main relief of recovery of possession is the foundation to decide whether the execution petition is within time or not. It held that the Court below committed an error in dismissing the execution petition as barred by limitation and allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the order and restoring the execution petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Articles 135 and 136 of the Limitation Act, the inseparability of reliefs, and the interpretation of the larger limitation prescribed for the main relief of recovery of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established that when reliefs sought are inseparable and have two distinct limitations, the limitation prescribed for the larger relief is the foundation to decide whether the execution petition is within time or not. It emphasized that the main relief granted would be unexecutable even if it is within limitation if the ancillary relief granted in aid of the main relief is barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the order dismissing the execution petition was set aside, and the execution petition was restored. The Executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Order.
ORDER :
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 03.08.2009 in E.P. No.336 of 2008 in O.S. No. 706 of 1998 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, wherein and whereby the execution petition filed by the revision petitioners for enforcement of judgment and decree dated 03.02.1999, was dismissed.
2. This revision is at the instance of decree holders. Respondent No.1 herein is the judgment debtor. During the pendency of this revision, respondent No.1 died and his legal heirs were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 5. The decree holders obtained decree for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction for removal of structures in the E.P. schedule property, apart from granting of damages.
3. The Executing Court had dismissed the E.P. on the ground that the execution of the decree for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation and consequently, the Execution Petition filed for the recover possession was also dismissed. Hence, the present revision.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that the Executing Court has not properly appreciated the reliefs which are sought in execution. According to him, the decree was consisting of reliefs of mandatory injunction as well as the recovery of possession. For enforcement of mandatory injunction, the limitation prescribed under Article 135 of the Limitation Act is only 3 years, whereas for other decrees, the limitation prescribed under Article 136 of Limitation Act is 12 years. For the relief of recovery of possession, the limitation prescribed is 12 years; whereas for mandatory injunction, it is 3 years. Both the reliefs are inseparable and intertwined and the main relief of recovery of possession is not independently executable.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Executing Court has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be executed beyond the 3 years from the date of decree when there is no stipulation of date for performance. According to him, before handing over of vacant possession, the decree-holder should obtain decree for demolition of structures by executing decree for mandatory injunction, which is not done in the present case. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and requires no interference.
6. In the light of the above submissions, it is apt to refer Articles 135 & 136 of Limitation Act, which read as under:
| Art. No. | Description of suit | Period of limitation | Time from which period begins to run |
| 135 | For the enforcement of a decree granting a mandatory injunction. | Three years | The date of the decree or where a date if fixed for performance, such date. |
| 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 the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place. Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation. |
7. A reading of Article 135 shows that for enforcement of decree of mandatory injunction, three years limitation is contemplated. That three years limitation commences from the date of decree where no time is fixed for performance and if the time is fixed from the date of fixed time, the limitation commences.
8. Insofar as Article 136 is concerned, it is a residuary provision for other decrees other than mandatory injunction and the time stipulation is 12 years. The limitati
The larger limitation prescribed for the main relief is the foundation to decide whether the execution petition is within time or not, and the main relief granted would be unexecutable even if it is ....
The nature of the decree for permanent injunction remains unchanged, and no specific limitation is provided under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for implementing such a decree.
A decree for permanent injunction is enforceable without a limitation period, while a decree for mandatory injunction is subject to a three-year limitation under the Limitation Act.
Decree became enforceable the moment judgment is delivered and merely because there will be delay in drawing up of decree, it cannot be said that decree is not enforceable till it is prepared.
The primary legal principle established is that a decree for restoration of possession, which includes the removal of illegal structures, is subject to a 12-year limitation period under Article 136 o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
