LexSHANKAR BALWANT LOKHANDE versus CHANDRAKANT SHANKER LOKHANDE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
T ·A SHANKARBALWANTLOKHANDE v. ..,..._ CHANDRAKANTSHANKERLOKHANDE ~RCH 20, 1995 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure Order 20 Rule 18(2}--Limitation Act 1908 Art. r 182-Final decree ordered to be prepared-Whether executing Court.can '~ receive preliminary decree before final decree made-When decree becomes c executable-Limitation when starts. .......~. Respondent and appellants were entitled to I/6th and 5/6th share respectively of a certain property by virtue of a preliminary decree of the trial Court. An order was passed to prepare a final decree on 19.4.58 but D was. not prepared because of non supply of non-judicial stamps by the appellants. However the first respondent supplied the stamped papers and got the final decree engrossed on it by the trial Court. ~ application for execution was filed by the appellants on 13.3.68 but was dismissed on ,.,_., grounds of limitation. On appeal the High Court held that there was no decree for execution in existence. ,. . E An application was thereafter filed before the trial Court on 3.2.76 to accept non-judicial stamps and pass a final decree, but was contested by the respondent as barred by limitation. The trial Court overruled the objection and allowed the application. On first appeal the Single Judge F held that it was barred by limitation since the application was not made r within 3 years form the date of direction of the Civil Court. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal in limine. Hence these appeals. Allowing the appeals, this Court ~ ,G HELD: 1. Limitation does not begin to run from the date when the direction is given to pass the final decree. Mere giving of a direction to \_ supply stamped paper for passing a final decree does not amount to passing a final decree. Until a final decree determining the rights of parties by metes and bounds is drawn up and engrossed on stamped paper by .H parties, there is no executable decree. [783-C] 776 r S.B. LOKHANDE v. C.S. LOKHANDE [K. RAMASWAMY, J.) 777 2. The executing Court cannot receive the preliminary decree unless A the final decree is passed as envisaged under Order 20 Rule 18(2) of the CPC. After a final decree is passed and a direction is issued to pay stamped papers for engrossing the final decree thereon and the same is duly engrossed on stamped papers it becomes executable or becomes an instrument duly stamped. Thus the condition precedent is to draw up a B final decree and then to engross it on stamped paper of required value. These two acts together constitute a final decree, crystallizing the rights of "f parties in terms of the preliminary decree. Till then there is no executable ( decree as envisaged in Order 20 R 18(2) CPC attrar.~ng the residuary Art. 182 of the old Limitation Act. Umitation begins to run only after a final I decree is engrossed on stamped papers. (783-E-G] c ---t~ Yeshwant v. Walchan<J, AIR (1951) SC 17, relied on. Maksudan Pd. v. Lakshmi Dev~ AIR (1983) Pat 105 and Smt. Kotipalli Mahalakshmamma v. K Ganeshwar Rao, AIR (1960) AP 54, approved. D Pandivi Satyananadam v. P .. Namayya, AIR (1938) Mad 307 and Basamma v. Sivamma, AIR (1963) Mysore 323, disapproved. Rameshwar Singh v. Homeshwar Singh, AIR (1921) PC 31, referred to. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2.652-53 of 1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.77 & 7.4.77 of the Boiµbay High Court in F.A NO. 229n6 and L.P.A No. 15of1977. Fr _c/ \ V.N. Ganpule, AS. Bhasme and Ms .. Punka Kumar for the Appel- "' lants . ' . / Mrs. J.S. Wad and Ms. Usha Reddy for the Respondents. The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by G J K. RAMASWAMY~ J. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated April 7, 1977 by which LPA 15m was dismissed in limine. The facts lie in a short compass for deciding the question of law arising in these appeals. On August 2, 1955, a prelimi- H 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R. A nary decree in Spl.Civil Suit No. 296/49 was passed declaring' that Chandrakant-first respondent was entitled to 1/6th share and the appellants '· were entitled to 5/6th share in the suit properties. An order was made on ~ April 19, 1958 directing preparation of a final decree. On December 19, 1'960, first respondent supplied non-judicial stamps to engross and sign the B final decree to the extent of his 1/6th share. On January 11, 1961, a final d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.