ANTONYSAMI versus ARULANANDAM PILLAI (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 30-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANTONYSAMI 
v. 
ARULANANDAM PILLAI (D) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 30, 2001 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963-Article 136-Execution o.f decree-Limitation 
period-Specified date mentioned in decree to carry out directions, whereafter 
execution could be applied-Compliance direction after the specified date-
C 
Execution petition filed within limitation period .from the date the direction 
carried out and not from the specified date-Held, the petition was barred by 
limitation-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XXl. 
·o 
Limitation-Period of-Detennination of~Held, is to be guided by strict 
grammatical meaning of the words and not on equitable consideration. 
A suit for specific performance of contract of sale by predecessor in 
interest of the decree holder-appellant against the judgment debtor-re-
spondent was decreed wherein the Court directed the judgment debtor to 
measure and demarcate the boundaries of the land and directed the decree 
E 
holder-appellant to deposit in the court the balance of the sale price for the 
land measured and demarcated on or before 23.9.1966 and the judgment 
debtor was to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holder on such 
measurement and demarcation and in default the court would execute the 
sale deed on application ofthe decree-holder. 
F 
G 
The decree holder deposited the balance of the sale price by 23.9.1966 
but the measurement and demarcation was done by the judgment debtor 
after a lapse of six years i.e. in 1973. Thereafter the decree holder-appel-
lant filed execution petition in 1980. Judgment-debtor raised objection to 
the petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation because the 
decree was enforceable on 23.9.1966. The case of the decree holder-appel-, 
lant w~ that since the condition regarding measurement and demarcation 
. of the land was complied with by the judgment-debtor in 1973 the period 
of 12 years is to be computed from the date. 
H 
Executing Court held the petition to be within limitation period on 
534 
\ 
ANTONYSAMI v. ARULANANDAM PILLAI 
535 
the ground that the decree under execution was a conditional decree which 
became enforceable when the judgment debtor measured and demarcated 
the land in 1973. 
Appellate Court set aside the order of executing court and held that 
it was not possible to conclude that just because the judgment debtor had 
riot measured and 'demarcated the property, the decree-holder had not 
acquired any right to execute the decree. 
High Court dismissed the revision petition holding that there was no 
' condition in the decree and therefore the execution petition was beyond the 
limitation period. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Cou'rt 
HELD: 1. The Appellate Court was right in dismissing the execution 
petition as time barred. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on a 
A 
B 
c 
fair reading of the decree in the context of the provisions of Article 136 of 
D 
the Limitation Act, 1963 the execution petition was filed ~ter expiry of the 
period of limitation prescribed under the Act. A specified date was men-
tioned in the decree for the judgment-debtor to carry out the direction i.e. 
· 23.9.1966 arid if he failed to carry out the direction, · it was open to the 
decree holder to seek help of the executing court for measurement and 
· E 
demarcation of the land, and thereafter, to get the sale. deed executed by 
the judgment-debtor if possible or by the Court if nee~ary. The decree 
cannot· be said to be a conditional one, hi the sense that the plaintiff could 
not enforce his rights under the decree till ·the defendant carried out the 
direction under the decree for measurement and demarcation of the land. 'F 
[543-H; 544·A·B] 
2. Ordinarily a decree becomes enforceabie immedi,tely after the 
judgment is pronounced. However, there may be situ~tions when a decree 
may not be enforceable on the date it is passed. Usually this situation arises 
where in the decree itself, the right of the decree-holder depends on hap-
pening of certain event or on fulfilment of certain other c!>nditi.ons by the 
parties in the case or by an external agency, under any 'provision of law. 
(540.;i>-E] 
G 
W.B. Essenti'!-l Commodities Supply Corpn. v. Swedesh Agro Farming & J ~H 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Am:, (1999] 8 SCC 315, referred to. 
·e 
c 
·D 
E 
Abdul Rashid v. Sri Sitaramaji Maharaj Brajman and Ors., AIR 

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