SRI RAJAH VENKATA PERUMAL RAJU BAHADUR VARU, MINOR, BY GUARDIAN MR W A VARADACHARIAR Vs. SRI MAHANT PRAYAG DOSSJEE VARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lower Court s conclusion against the appellant is not sustainable, in so far as it is based on the suspension of respondent s right to execute during the Court of Ward s possession of the former s estate. The first period of that possession was not long enough, if excluded from the computation, to justify respondent s delay; and the second, during which (it is agreed) the decree was not transferred to the Collector for execution, cannot be excluded. Kumara Venkata Perumal v. Velayuda Reddi 24 Ind. Cas. 195 : 27 M.L.J. 25.

(2.) Respondent has then urged that he is entitled to execute within 12 years from the date on which he obtained personal decree against the appellant, and that the lower Court should be called on to deal with the application on that footing. The lower Court did not sonsider this at the hearing before it, because it had another ground of decision, in its own opinion satisfactory. In these circumstances we think that respondent should not be debarred from relying on the computation of time from the date of the personal decree now.

(3.) The lower Court is requested to submit a finding on the issue whether the application is barred by limitation in the light of the foregoing. Fresh evidence may be taken. Finding should be submitted within six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.