Limitation for executing compromise decrees begins upon breach of obligations, not from the decree date.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the Judgment Debtor in EXE.No.2356/2023 is directed on the file of XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Executing Court” for short) is directed against the impugned order dated 24.03.2025, whereby the objection raised by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor that the execution proceedings were not maintainable as being barred by limitation was rejected by the Executing Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner - judgment debtor is none other than the brother of the respondents - decree holders. The petitioner instituted a suit in OS No.6971/2000 against the respondents-defendants, which culminated in a compromise decree dated 18.11.2009, the terms of which are set out as hereunder:

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH RULES FIND 25 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDIATION) RULES, 2007

The parties above named beg to submit as follows:

I. The plaintiff has filed this suit praying for a judgment and decree for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share of the plaintiff in Schedule-A and B properties and Schedule-C business and mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery, among other reliefs. The aforesaid suit was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. In the course of mediation, they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions:

(a) Both the parties have agreed to treat that the memorandum of partition entered into between them on 3.3.1997 and marked as Ex.P.1 in the above suit has been acted upon.

(b) The plaintiff confirms that the Schedule-B properties and Schedule-C business are the self- acquired properties of the concerned defendants. As such, plaintiff does not have any claim over the B- Schedule properties and C-Schedule business the same exclusively belongs to each one of the respective defendants.

(c) By virtue of this settlement, both plaintiff and defendants have jointly agreed to sell and dispose of Schedule-A properties to the best market price and share the proceeds equally, i.e., 1/5th share each. The schedule properties along with the below mentioned V.V. Puram property shall be sold in the following order its entirety:

(i) Property bearing No.523, 1m Main Road, Anjinaya Temple Street, V.V. Puram, Bangalore, measuring 30ft. x 75 ft. together with existing building.

(ii) Property No.221, Sampangiramnagar, Bangalore-560 027 (Item No.3 of the Schedule-A);

(iii) Property bearing No.1041, 20m main, 1 Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010 (Item No.1 of A-Schedule)

(iv) Property bearing No.C-72-(Old No. 104) P.V.R. Road, Ranasingpet, Bangalore-560 002) Item No.2 of 'A' Schedule)

(v) Land bearing No.425/2, measuring 1 acre and 20 Cents or as found in the Revenue record of Seri Village, Kaveripakkam, Tamil Nadu (Item-4 of 'A' Schedule);

(d) It is the joint responsibility of plaintiff and defendants to co-ordinate with each other in bringing the above properties for sale (Schedule-A properties described in the plaint). It is also mutually agreed to bear all the expenses in connection with updating the title deeds and obtaining encumbrance certificates and also payment of tax to the Corporation or to the Revenue authorities in respect of the above properties.

(e) It is mutually agreed between the parties that all of them will co-ordinate together for the sale of the schedule properties and the said V.V. Puram property and so also selecting the prospecti