ROOPRAO SINGH WASUDEO KIRAD Vs. SURAJMAL SINGH LACCHIRAMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS second appeal by the original Judgment-debtor raises somewhat intricate and interesting question as to whether the execution is liable to be set aside, since abates owing to omission to substitute legal representatives within the period prescribed by residuary article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 of a judgment-debtor who died subsequent to passing of a decree but before initiation of execution proceedings ?

(2.) THE Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 256/58 for partition, on 7-10-1970 had drawn a decree in terms of compromise. The judgment-debtor original defendant No. 3 Subhadrabai died on 28-7-1972. The defendant No. 1 Lachchiram singh died on 30-7-1973. The Respondents who are the legal representatives of decree-holder Lachhiramsingh on 17-2-1978 initiated an execution of a decree for partition showing the appellants as legal representatives of deceased judgment-debtor Subhadrabai.

(3.) THE appellants raised an objection that the legal representatives of judgment-debtor Subhadrabai were not brought in the decree within the period of 3 years from the date of death of Subhadrabai as per residuary article 137 of the Limitation Act. They, therefore, prayed that the execution is liable to struck down. The trial Court rejected the objection. In appeal, the order was maintained. It is held that the decree-holder can join the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor simultaneously along with the execution It is observed that Article 137 of the limitation Act has no application and matter is governed by Article 136 of the Act which prescribes the limitation of 12 years for execution of a decree.