DHANALAKSHMI Vs. S PALANIVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DECREE -holder/court auction purchaser (1st respondent) has been driven from pillar to post for several years by the petitioners, who at every stage, lost in their litigations upto this Court. First respondent, court auction purchaser, did not have a right in species and necessarily, as ordained in law, he is constrained to file a suit for partition and get preliminary and final decrees, wherein equivalent in species, got allotted to him.

(2.) IN this Civil Revision Petition, Mr. K. Doraisami, learned senior counsel, contended that Art.134 of the Limitation Act would apply and the first respondent ought to have filed the execution petition within one year from the date of final decree. He then argued that even a suit for partition was barred by limitation, for auction was confirmed on 7.8.1979 while the suit was filed on 22.10.1980 after a period of one year. The principle that has to be applied in cases of this nature has been clearly stated by a Division Bench of this Court in Thani Chettiar v. Dakshinamurthy Mudaliar, AIR 1955 Madras 288. The following observations of Rajamanner, C.J. will be relevant.