NARASU Vs. NARAYAN KRISHNAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are some of the respondents in Regular Dharkast No. 204 of 1947 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum. The first respondent is one of the petitioners (decree-holder) in the trial Court.

(2.) Regular Dharkast No. 204/47 purports to be an execution petition. In that petition, the representatives of the decree-holders in O. S. No. 119 of 1890 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum, applied to the Court below to send the said decree to the Collector of the District for partitioning the property under Order XX, Rule 18 (1), C. P. C. The respondents therein are said to be the representatives of the original judgment-debtors. Most of the respondents resisted the application on several grounds including the ground of limitation.

(3.) To understand the scope of the controversy, it is necessary to state a few more facts. The trial Court's decree in O. S. No. 119 of 1890 had been modified by the High Court of Bombay. After the High Court's decree, the decree-holders appear to have filed some applications to the trial Court to take steps to partition the property in question. Barring some minor adjustments nothing substantial appears to have been done to partition the property. The present dharkast was filed in 1947.