MURGEPPA VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. RACHAPPA VEERABHADRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, this Court is called upon to determine he true scope of the expression "some part of the principal money secured thereby or some interest on such money has been paid", found in the proviso to the third column of Art.183 of the Limitation Act, the question arising for decision being whether the claim made in the execution petition which has given rise to this appeal, is barred by time.

(2.) The material facts of the case are these. Respondent as Decree-holder obtained a decree against the appellant and two others in Summary Suit No. 299 of 1944 on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. The decree in question was passed on 19th August 1944. The application for execution with which we are concerned in this case was filed on 21st June 1957. The judgment debtor No.3 paid to the Decree-holder on 25th June 1947 a sum of Rs. 1,000 and another sum of Rs. 700 on 18th August 1949. The question that arises for decision is, whether these payments can be said to keep alive the decree against all the judgment-debtors.

(3.) Article 183 of the Limitation Act reads this: To enforce a judgment, decree or order of any Court established by Royal Charter in the exercise of its ordinary Civil jurisdiction, or an order of the Supreme Court. Twelve years When a present right to enforce the judgment, decree or order accrues to some person capable of releasing the right. Provided that when judgment, decree or order has been revived, or some part of the principal money secured thereby or some interest on such money has been paid, or some acknowledgment or right thereto has been given in writing signed by the person liable to pay such principal or interest or his agent, to the person entitled thereto or his agent, the 12 years shall be computed from the date of such revivor, payment of acknowledgment or the latest of such revivors payments or acknowledgments, as the case may be"