KRISHNA LAL BURMAN Vs. SATYABALA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this ease is whether the application for execution of the decree is barred by limitation. The question arises in the following manner. The husband of the respondent Srimati Satyabala Debi, obtained a decree for possession of certain immovable properties on the 14 March, 1915. The defendants appellants before us preferred an appeal against the said decree. Pending the appeal Purna Chandra Burman, the husband, died on the 20 February, 1917. There was then a contest between Satyabala, the widow of the deceased, and the father of Purna Chandra, as to who was the legal representative of the deceased. The father was substituted as the legal representative on the 3 April, 1917, and the Court observed that as the question of heirship was not decided, she would not be affected by the order. On the next day, the father of the deceased filed a solenama giving up his right to the property in suit and consenting to the decree of the Court of first instance being set aside. That decree was accordingly set aside. Satyabala, the widow, was at that time and is still a minor. She applied for execution of the decree and an objection was taken on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. The Court of first instance decided the question in her favour.

(2.) On appeal, the District Judge did not consider the question of limitation. He held that as the widow was the legal representative of the deceased, it was obvious that she would not be affected by the decree passed between the parties.

(3.) The defendant judgment-debtor has appealed to this Court. There are conflicting affidavits as to whether the question of limitation was argued before the learned District Judge. It is unnecessary to decide that question; but assuming that it was raised, we do not think that the application is barred.