Execution of a sale deed based on a compromise decree is enforceable despite claims of limitation, provided there is consistent pursuit of rights through various legal avenues.

ORDER :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for the petitioners herein - Judgment Debtor Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Decree Holder.

2. All these revisions arise out of E.P.No.43 of 2024 (Old E.P. No.58 of 1984) and the parties therein are one and the same. Therefore, these revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by way of common order.

3. The petitioners herein and respondent Nos.2 to 11 are the judgment debtors in E.P. No.43 of 2024, while respondent No.1 herein is the decree holder.

4. C.R.P. No.3643 of 2025 is filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal in E.P. N o.43 of 2024 (Old E.P. No.58 of 1984) in O.S. No.389 of 1969. The said E.P. is filed for enforcing the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1971 in O.S. No.389 of 1969. Vide the said order dated 22.09.2025, learned Executing Court allowed the said E.P. directing the petitioners herein - judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 to execute and register sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 - decree holder or his assignee within two (02) from the date of said order, failing which the decree holder or his assignee is entitled to take steps in accordance with law under Order - 21, Rule - 34 of C.P.C. for execution of sale deed.

5. In the E.P., it is contended by respondent No.1 - decree holder that the appeal preferred by him vide C.C.C.A. No.190 of 1972 against the decree dated 28.09.1971 in O.S. No.361 of 1969, was ended in compromise on 20.07.1976 in terms of C.M.P. No.3738 of 1976. Judgment debtor Nos.1 to 3 failed to execute and register the sale deed as per the terms of the compromise decree in the said CCCA. Meanwhile, judgment debtor No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) died, leaving behind judgment debtor Nos.2, 3 and 7 to 9 as his legal representatives. The description of the properties shown in the E.P.schedule is as under:

i) The land admeasuring Acs.6.03 guntas in Survey No.130, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Taluq, with boundaries North: Pattia Land of Harijans; South: Survey No.131; East: Survey No.129; and West: Hyderabad-Medchal Main Road.

ii) The land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas intricately contiguous to Survey No.131 on the southern side, with boundaries North: Survey No.130, South: Survey No.131, East: Survey No.129 and West: Hyderabad - Medchal Main Road.

iii) The land admeasuring Acs.12.36 guntas immediately contiguous Survey No.129 on the eastern side with boundaries, North: Patta land of Harijans; South: Portion of Survey No.129; East: Survey No.128; and West: Survey Nos.130 and 131.

All the aforesaid lands are situated at Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Taluq, Rangareddy District, making a total extent of Acs.20.39 guntas.

6. As far as C.R.P. No.4173 of 2025 is concerned, in the said E.P., respondent No.1 - decree holder filed E.A. No.254 of 2023 under Section - 47 read with 151 of CPC seeking a direction to the judgment debtors to convey land admeasuring Acs.1.15 guntas from out of the land possessed by them covered by Survey No.131/Part to fulfill the terms of compromise dated 21.02.1985 contending as follows:

a) During pendency of the E.P., the decree-holder entered into compromise with the judgment debtors in connection with conveying land to him. As per the terms of compromise arrived between them and recorded by this Court on 21.02.1985, the judgment debtors have to convey the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.128, Acs.6.03 guntas in Survey No.130 and Ac.2.37 guntas in Survey No.131 of Kandlakoya Village, making a total extent of Acs.1