DATTU APPARAO MACHALE Vs. DIGAMBAR GOVINDRAO SHENDGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revisional application by the judgment-debtors against the order of the H. A. D. R. Court confirmed in appeal. The short facts are that in an application for settlement of debts under the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1956, the debt court made an award under that Act on September 4, 1957, whereby the judgment-debtors were required to make certain payments to the judgment-creditor opponent herein. This award was sent by the Court for registration and it was registered on July 4 1961. The opponent, award holder applied for the execution of the award to the Court on January 21, 1964. The judgment-debtors contended that the execution was barred because the execution was sought beyond a period of three years of the making of the award and Art. 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908, barred the application. Both the Courts below have rejected this contention.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge held that as it is the duty of the Court to register the award and it was registered only on July 4, 1961 and in the absence of registration it was not executable, the application filed within three years from the date of the registration was within time. The learned Judges held that the new Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 136 which prescribes a period of 12 years for execution of a decree applies.

(3.) BEFORE me it is argued by Mr. Bhasme that Art. 182 of the Limitation Act prescribed a period of three years from the date of the decree or six years if it were a registered decree. His contention that the fact that registration took so much time and it was finally registered on July 4, 1961 is not a matter of any moment and not relevant. The starting point is the date of the decree. He then says that the Courts below were wrong in applying Art. 136 of the new Limitation Act because Section 30 prevents reviving any cause or matter if it was barred by the earlier Limitation Act. In order to answer these contentions, the relevant provisions of the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, which I will refer to as the said Act, need be examined. Section 38 requires that every award shall be registered as provided in Chapter III. Section 49 of the Act requires the Court to send the award to the Sub-Registrar of the sub-district in which the property, the subject-matter of the award, is situated, together with a memorandum containing such particulars as the Government may prescribe. Section 50 provides that if an appeal is filed against an award under Section 43, the Court shall send a notice regarding the institution of the appeal to the Sub-Registrar or the Registrar. Section 51 requires that if no appeal is filed after the expiry of the period provided for an appeal against an award or if an appeal is filed after the disposal of the appeal, the Registrar or Sub-Registrar shall register the award. No material was placed on record of the trial Court and of the lower appellate to disclose the reason why the registration took such a long time. There may, however, be some reasons or the other why the award came to be registered only as late as July 4, 1961.