ISMAIL IBRAHIM Vs. FIRM OF RATILAL JASHWANTLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJU J.

(2.) THE respondents execution application against the appellants was held not to be time barred by the lower appellate Court on the ground That the limitation is saved by sec. 15 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 because all the properties of the appellants were evacuee properties and they had vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Properties by reason of a vesting order. THE effect of the vesting order is that the execution of the decree against the properties which had vested in the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties was barred by sec. 17 of the Administration of Eaacuee Property Act 1950 but the execution of the decree itself was not barred. If all the properties had vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Properties perhaps we could say that the execution of the decree had been barred. But even then we cannot say that the personal execution of the decree had been barred. In any case sec. 17 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act shows that some of the properties had not vested in the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties namely the wearing apparels and ornaments etc. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the execution of the decree had been barred as a whole. THErefore sec. 15 of the Indian Limitation Act has no application.