DR. CHIRANJI LAL (D) BY LRS. versus HARI DAS (D) BY LRS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 13-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. CHIRANJI LAL (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
HARI DAS (D) BY LRS. 
MAY 13, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., Y.K. SABHARWAL AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963-Artic/e 136-Decree passed in a partition suit-
Period of limitation for execution of such decree commences from the date of 
A 
B 
the decree and not from the date of engrossment of the decree on the stamp · C 
paper-Engrossment of the decree on stamp paper would relate back to the 
date of the decree-Indian Stamp Act, I 899--Section 35. 
In a suit for partition filed against the predecessor-in-interest of the 
appellants, final decree. was passed on 7th August, 1981 in favour of the 
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. There was no order of the Court D 
directing the parties to furnish stamp papers for the purposes of engrossing 
the decree. The stamp papers required for engrossing the decree were 
furnished by respondents on 25th May, 1982 and the decree was engrossed 
thereafte~. The execution application was filed on 21st March, 1994 in the 
High Court. The appellant raised objection that the execution application E 
was barred by limitation in view of Article 136 of the Act, but the execution 
court rejected the objection. That order was upheld by the Division Bench 
in appeal, which held that unless and until the decree is engrossed on the 
stamp paper it is merely a judgment of the Court and there is no decree 
available for execution and therefore, the starting point of limitation in 
case of execution of a decre~ in partition suit is the date when the decree F 
is engrossed on the requisite stamp papers as that would be the date when 
decree becomes enforceable. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The In~ian Stamp Act, 1899 is a fiscal measure enacted G 
with. an object to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of 
instruments. Since a decree in a suit for partition creates rights ~nd 
liabilities of the parties with respect to the immovable properties, it is 
, considered as an instrument liable for the payment of stamp duty under 
the Indian Stamp Act.· 
~59 
H 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
1.2. The Indian Stamp Act is not enacted to arm a litigant with a 
weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponent. The stringent 
provisions of the Act are conceived in the interest of the revenue. Once 
that object is secured according to law, the party staking his claim on the 
instrument will not be defeated on the ground of initial defect in the 
B instrument. [368-E-FJ 
c 
·n 
Hameed Joharan and Ors. v. Abdul Salam and Ors., [2001) 7 SCC 573; 
Renu Devi v. Mahendra Singh and Ors., AIR (2003) SC 1608 and Hindustan 
Steel Limitedv. Messrs Dilip Construction Company, [1969) 1SCC597, relied 
on. 
Shankar Ba/want Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande and Anr., 
[1995] 3 SCC 413 and WB. Essential Commodities Supply Corporation v. 
Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., [1999] 8 SCC 315, 
referred to. 
2. The engrossment of the final decree in a suit for partition would 
relate back to the date of the decree. The beginning of the period of 
limitation for executing such a decree cannot be made to depend upon date 
of the engrossment of such a decree on the stamp paper. The date of 
furnishing of stamp paper is an uncertain act, within the domain,,.purview 
E and control of a party. No date or period is fixed for furnishing stamp 
papers. No rule has been shown requiring the court to call upon or give 
any time for furnishing of stamp paper. A party by his own act of not 
furnishing stamp paper cannot stop the running of period of limitation. 
None can take advantage of his own wrong. Ttie' proposition that period 
of limitation would remain suspended till stamp paper is furnished and 
F · decree engrossed thereupon and only thereafter the period of twelve years 
will b'egin to run would lead to absurdity. [369-E, GJ 
Yeshwant Deorao Deshmukh v. Walchand Ramchand Kothari, [1950) 
SCR 852, relied on. 
G 
3. Rules of limitation are meant to see that parties do not resort to 
dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. There is no statutory 
provision prescribing a time Jim it for furnishing of the stamp paper for 
engrossing the decree or time limit for engrossment of the decree on stamp 
paper and there is no statutory obligation on the Court passing the decree 
H to direct the parties to furnish the stamp paper for engrossing the decree. 
~ 
( 
-----'· . 
_,. 
CHIRANJILAL(D)BYL

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