BASAMMA Vs. SHIVAMMA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An, interesting question as to whether a decree in a partition suit not engrossed on a non-judicial stamp paper could be executed, arises in this appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit O. S. 487 of 1949-50 in the Court of the Munsiff, Nanjangud for partition and possession of half share in the schedule properties, against the defendants, who are respondents before this Court. The suit was ultimately compromised and the compromise decree was passed on 16-2-1950. This decree was not engrossed on a stamp paper. On 14-10-1957, the learned Munsiff ordered the decree to be drawn up on a stamp paper on application I. A. No. 1 filed by the decree-holder and it was so drawn up.

(2.) The plaintiff decree-holder took out several executions to which I will refer a little later, all of which were dismissed excepting the fourth one viz. Ex. 1623 of 57 filed on 29-11-1957. To this last application viz. Ex. 1623/57, filed by the decree-holder, objection was taken by the judgment-debtors viz. respondents 1 and 2 that the execution was barred by limitation. The learned Munsiff held that the execution application was not barred by limitation. On appeal by the judgment-debtors (respondents) the learned Civil Judge, Mysore, held that the said application was barred by limitation and dismissed the same. Hence this appeal. Plaintiff-decree-holder is the appellant before this Court. The defendants-judgment-debtors are the respondents.

(3.) The only point for decision in this appeal is whether the said execution application is barred by time as contended by the respondents or is saved on account of the intermediate steps for execution taken by the decree-holder as contended by Sri Gulur Srinivasa Rao, the learned Advocate for the appellant.