9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. When does a final decree for partition become enforceable under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. Applicability of Rule 6A of Order 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to partition decrees. 3. Handling conflicting Supreme Court decisions by High Courts. Summary: 1. Enforceability of Final Decree for Partition: The primary issue is determining when a final decree for partition becomes enforceable under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 136 prescribes a 12-year limitation period for the execution of any decree, starting from when the decree becomes enforceable. The court held that a decree for partition, being an "instrument of partition" under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act, 1899, is chargeable with stamp duty. Under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, such a decree cannot be admitted in evidence or acted upon unless duly stamped. Therefore, it does not become enforceable until engrossed on requisite stamp papers. The period of limitation for execution begins only when the decree is so drawn up. 2. Applicability of Rule 6A of Order 20 of CPC: The court examined the argument that Rule 6A of Order 20 of the CPC allows a decree-holder to apply for execution based on the last paragraph of the judgment, even before the decree is formally drawn up. However, the court clarified that Rule 6A applies to cases where a decree could be drawn up immediately after the judgment but has not been due to court delay. In the case of partition decrees, which require requisite stamps to be furnished, Rule 6A does not apply. The decree for partition cannot come into existence in law until drawn up on stamp papers, and thus, the period of limitation does not begin until then. 3. Handling Conflicting Supreme Court Decisions: The court addressed the issue of conflicting Supreme Court decisions. It noted that when faced with such conflicts, the High Court should first try to reconcile the decisions. If reconciliation is not possible, the High Court may follow the decision it finds more reasonable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Udayan Chinubhai v. R.C. Bali and Yeshwant Deorao v. Walchand Ramchand, noting that the former provided more elaborate observations relevant to partition decrees. The court decided to follow the decision in Udayan Chinubhai, holding that a decree for partition does not become enforceable until engrossed on requisite stamp papers. Conclusion: The court concluded that the decree for partition in this case was not barred by time, as the period of limitation had not begun to run. The revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the executing court was directed to proceed with the execution in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made, and the court appreciated the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for both parties.
|
