CHERUKURU BRAHMIAH Vs. KURAPATI CHELAVAPILLA SETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Cherukuru Brahmiah, feels aggrieved with the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Nellore in A. S. No. 18 of 1961 on his file.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows: Cherukury Brahmaiab, obtained a money decree in O. S. No. 4 of 1956 on the file of the Sub Court, Kavali thereinafter referred to for convenience as Kavali decree) against Kurapati Chelwapilla Setti and some others. Setty also obtained another money decree against Brahmaiah in O. S. No. 5 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nellore (hereinafter referred to for convenience as Nellore decree). An appeal judgment, which was final as regards the Kavali decree, was pronounced on 31-12-1956. Consequently, the last date for filing E. P. regarding that decree was 31-12-1959. Brahmaiah filed E. P. No. 57 of 1980 in execution of that Kavali decree on 22-3-1960. He had not taken any execution before, though the period of three years from the date of the appellate judgment had expired on 31-12-1959. His contention was that limitation was saved for various reasons connected with execution proceedings in the Nellore decree. On 13-2-1957. Setty filed E. P. No. 43 of 1957 (Ex. A-1) in the Sub-Court, Nellore in which be prayed for attachment of Kavali decree, for substitution of himself as decree-holder in the Kavali decree and to enable him to execute that decree in the Kavali Court, as specified in E. P. No. 49 of 1957. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore passed an order on 22-2-1957 (Ex. A-2) attaching the decree. In pursuance of the order, he issued a notice (Ex. A-2) as follows:

(3.) Meanwhile, Brahmaiab filed on 22-3-1960 E. P. No. 57 of 1960 in the Kavali Court in execution of his decree (Kavali decree) claiming only the amount due under the decree after setting off the amount which was due by Brahmaiah to Setty under the Nellore decree. The Kavali decree was personally against Setty and against joint family property in the hands of all the judgment-debtors. In E. A. No. 57 of 1960, Brahmaiah impleaded four respondents namely, defendants 1, 3, 4, 5, in O. S. No. 4 of 1956. They were judgment-debtors. Of them R-1 is Setty. Contention was raised by the respondents that the decree was barred by limitation. But, Brahmaiah contended that limitation was saved. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the decree was barred by limitation and dismissed the E. P. Brahmaiah filed A. S. No. 18 of 1961 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Nel-lore. The appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge who confirmed the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal.