AKKAYANAICKER versus A.A.A. KOTCHADAINAIDU AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 23-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
AKKA YANAICKER 
v. 
A.A.A. KOTCHADAINAIDU AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 
[ASHOK BHAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963-Artic/e 136-Execution Petition-Limitation-
Computation-Legislative bar for execution of decree-Amendment of decree 
by legislative intervention-Execution petition, after lifting of the bar and 
amendment of decree-Held: Limitation period would be computed from the 
date the decree was amended and not from the date of decree as decree 
became enforceable only after the amendment-The word "enforceable" in 
the. Article is to be construed with reference to the decree sought to be 
enforced-Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 197 5-
Sections 3, 4 and 5-Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) 
Act, 1976-Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978. 
Recovery suit filed by appellant-decree holder against respondent-
judgment debtor was decreed on 2.5.1973. Execution petition filed in 
1973 was closed due to legislative intervention by enactment of Tamil 
Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976. Thereafter 
by virtue of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978, on application of the 
Judgment Debtor, Executing Court scaled down the decree in 1979. 
Thereafter decree holder filed execution Petition in 1989. Judgment 
debtor objected the same as barred by limitation u/A 136 of Limitation 
Act, 1963 as it was filed beyond 12 years. Executing Court allowed the 
petition holding that the limitation would start from the date the decree 
was amended as it is from that date the decree was enforceable. High 
Court held that the limitation period was to be counted from the date 
of original decree. 
In appeal to this Court appellant-decree holder contended that the 
G 
point of limitation is the date when the decree becomes enforceable and 
that in the present case the decree become enforceable when the legislative 
bar was raised and the decree was amended due to legislative intervention. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: The word "enforceable" in Article 136 of Limitation Act, 
638 
1-
AKKA Y ANAICKER v. A.A.A. KOTCHADAINAIDU [BHAN, J.] 639 
1963 has to be construed with reference to the decree that is sought to 
A 
be enforced. In the present case the decree-holder filed an application 
for execution in the year 1973 itself but its proceedings were closed and 
adjourned sine die because of the legislative intervention which continued 
till the legislature enacted Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978 
and 
provided for the scaling down of the debts obtained by the agriculturists 
B 
including decrees already passed. 
In pursuance to this legislative 
enactment the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder was 
substantially scaled down and the decree was amended on 18.10.1979 in 
terms of the Debt Relief Act. It is this decree which became enforceable. 
Prior to this date the decree-holder could not enforce his decree because 
of the legislative intervention. The original decree could not be enforced. 
C 
It is only the amended decree which could be enforced. When there was 
a legislative bar for the execution of a decree and later due to legislative 
intervention the decree had to be scaled down and amended then 
enforceability of decree shall commence when the bar ceases or from 
the date the decree is amended and scaled down. If the period of 12 
D 
years is counted from the date of the amendment of the decree then the 
execution petition filed by the decree-holder on 18.9.1989 is within the 
period of limitation. (645-E-H; 646-A] 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE WRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.98 of the Madras High Court 
in C.R.P. No. 3540 of 1992. 
R. Nedumaran and M.A. Chinnasamy for the Appellant. 
Rishiraj Borooah and K.K. Mani for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAN, J. : Appellant/decree-holder being 
aggrieved against the 
judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP No. 
3540 of 1992 wherein the High Court while allowing the Civil Revision 
Petition filed by the respondent has dismissed the execution petition filed by 
the appellant, has filed the present appeal by leave of the Court. 
Appellant/decree holder (hereinafter referred to as "the decree holder") 
filed O.S. No. 322of1972 seeking a decree in the sum of Rs. 18,912 along 
E 
F 
G 
H 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
with agreed rate. of interest @ 12% p.a. being th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.