DEEP CHAND AND ORS. versus MOHAN LAL

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 03-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DEEP CHAND AND ORS. 
v. 
MOHAN LAL 
APRIL 3, 2000 
(S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND R.P. SETIH, JJ.] 
limitation Act, 1963 : Article 136. 
Decree Execution of-Period of limitation-Decree became enfon::eable 
only after execution of sale deed-Held : Generally a decree becomes enfon::e-
able from its date but court may prescribe in appropriate cases of future date 
from which the decree becomes enfon::eable-Period of limitation in such cases, 
therefore, runs from the date when the decree becomes enforr:eable-Hence, 
application for execution of decree filed within 12 years after execution of sale 
deed maintainable. 
Decree Execution of-General principles-Held: Executing court should 
no, find ways to dismiss the execttiion application as barred by time unless such 
an application is beyond limitation-Where the language of the decree is 
capable of two interpretations, the one which assists the decree-holder to 
obtain the fruits of the decree should be preferred-A rational approach should 
be taken in view of rhe prolonged litigation-Interpretation of Statutes. 
The respondent's suit for specific performance of contract was de· 
creed. The decree for possession of the land became enforceable only after 
the execution of the sale deed as per court's direction. The appeal filed by 
the appellant-judgment debtors was dismissed on merits subject to the 
condition that in case the judgment-debtors made the payment to the 
decree-holder in two instalments, the plaintiff's suit would stand dismissed. 
However, the judgment-debtors failed to abide by the terms of the said 
decree. 
Thereafter, the respondent-decree-holder filed successive execution 
applications within the period of limitation, which were dismissed. But the 
decree-holder got the sale deed executed vide court order dated 23.3.1984. 
Despite the mutation of ownership sanction in favour of decree-holder, the 
judgment-debtors did not deliver the possession of the land in question. 
Therefore, the respondent filed an application for execution in April 1984 
which was dismissed by the executing court holding that the same was 
890 
-
--
DEEP CHAND v. MOHAN LAL 
891 
barred by limitation as provided under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 
A 
1963. The revision petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the 
High Court. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The period of limitation prescribed by Article 136 of 
the Limitation Act, 1963 starts to run from the date when the decree 
becomes enforceable provided the case does not fall Within the scope of the 
latter part of the provision in the third column. Generally a decree or 
order becomes enforceable from its date, but in appropriate cases the 
court passing the decree may prescribe time wherefrom the decree be-
comes enforceable on a future date. [894-A-B] 
1.2. The purpose of execution proceeding is to enable the decree-holder 
to obtain the fruits of his decree. In case where the language of the decree is 
capable of two interpretations, the one which assists the decree-holder to 
obtain the fruits of the decree and the other preventing him from taking the 
benefits to the decree, the interpretation which assists the decree-holder 
should be accepted. The execution of the decree should not be made futile 
on mere.technicalities which does not, however, mean that where a decree is 
incapable of being executed under any provision oflaw it should, in all cases, 
be executed notwithstanding such bar or prohibition. A rational approach 
is necessitated keeping in view the prolonged factum of litigation resulting 
in the passing of the decree in favour of a litigant. The policy of law is to give 
a fair an liberal and not a technical construction enabling the decree-holder 
to reap the fruits of his decree. [894-C-D] 
Akshoy Kumar Debi v. Nalini Ranjan Mukherjee, AIR (1950) Cal. 473; 
Annapumamma v. Venkamma, AIR (1939) Mad. 323 and Mst. Panneshri v. 
Mst Att~ AIR (1958) Punj. 79, approved. 
2. In this case the decree for possession of land became enforceable 
only after the execution of the sale deed as was the direction of the court 
decreeing the suit. Before the execution of the sale deed in his favour on 
23.3.1984, the decree-holder was not entitled to possession in terms of the 
decree. The decree, therefore, itself directed its execution after the execu-
tion of the sale deed in favour of the decree-holder. The decree-holder has 
been proved to have tiled succes

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