P.T. MUNIA SERVAI Vs. HANUMAN BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, P.T. Munia Servai, was indebted to the Hanuman Bank. The Bank was ordered to be wound up in 1947. During the liquidation proceedings Munia Servai deposited the title -deeds of certain of his properties situate in Tanjore District as security for the amount due from, him to the Bank. That was on 13th February, 1948. On Application No. 4085 of 1948, preferred by the Official Liquidators, the Court determined the liability of Munia Servai at Rs. 4,80,596 -9 -0 and he was further directed to deliver his properties to the Liquidators. Subsequent to that, Munia Servai preferred Application No. 3701 of 1953 to reduce the quantum of his liability to the Bank. By agreement between the Liquidators and the debtor, the liability was reduced, and the Court fixed the reduced liability at Rs. 1,74,238 -8 -0. By clause (3) of its order dated 21st October, 1953, this Court directed that out of the amount of Rs. Rs. 1,74,238 -8 -0, a sum of Rs. 25,000 should be paid on or before 21st November,. 1953 and that the balance should be paid on or before 21st July, 1954; Clause (4) of the order, dated 21st October, 1953, directed that in default of payment of the sum of Rs. 25,000 the entire amount due, that is, Rs. 1,74238 -8 -0 should become immediately payable. The direction in clause (6) was that upon the failure of the said P.T. Munia Servai to discharge the liability within the time feed in clause 3, all the said charged properties including the Thanampadigai properties shall be sold for the realisation of the dues.

(2.) MUNIA Servai, however, was appointed Receiver of the Thanampadigai properties and he continued in possession as such. Munia Servai did not comply with the directions contained in the order, dated 21st October, 1953. On 26th August, 1957, the Liquidators preferred Application No. 1598 of 1957, which was in effect an application to execute the order, dated 21st October, 1953. The Liquidators sought a direction for the sale of the charged properties and for the appointment of a Commissioner to conduct that sale. The defences to that claim for execution put forward by the judgment -debtor, Munia Servai, were overRuled by Subrahmanyam, J., by his order, dated 26th November, 1957. The learned Judge ordered the sale of the properties other than those at Thanampadigai. The learned Judge directed the Liquidators to apply for further directions for the sale of the Thanampadigai properties. It was against this order, dated 26th November, 1957, that this appeal was preferred by the judgment -debtor Munia Servai.

(3.) THE question for determination is whether Application No. 1598 of 1957,which as we said, was in effect an application for execution, fell within the scope of Article 182 or Article 183 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The contention of the judgment -debtor was that it was Article 182 that applied and not Article 183, and that the application having been preferred more than three years after the date of the decree, 21st October, 1953, was barred by limitation The contention of the Liquidators -decree -holders which was accepted by the learned Judge, was that Article 183 applied. That if Article 183 did not apply, the claim would fall within the scope of Article 182 could not admit of any doubt. Therefore, the real question for our consideration is whether the claim of the Liquidators -decree -holders fell within the scope of Article 183.