ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL REPRESENTING THE ESTATE OF EAPOOR C RAMALINGAM CHETTY Vs. THOTTA RADHAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, dismissing E.P. No. 205 of 1929 in O.S. No. 16 of 1914 on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

(2.) The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the Execution Petition is barred by limitation.

(3.) This petition is filed by the Administrator-General of Madras representing the estate of Eapoor C. Ramalingam Chettiar, who it is alleged, had become entitled to the rights of the late Thotta Rajagopala Chettiar, who was the fourth plaintiff in the suit. The final decree in the suit, which was one for sale of the mortgaged properties, was passed on 2nd November, 1920; and this petition was filed on 24 June, 1929. The first contention of the appellant is that as the decree was subsequently amended by an order made on 13 July, 1929, (Ex. G) on an application made by one of the defendants in the suit and one of the items of the decree was deleted, he is entitled to have the date of the amendment taken as the starting point for purposes of limitation and that if it is so done, this application is not barred. But, as already observed, this application was filed before the date of the said amendment and is for the execution of the final decree as originally passed on the 2nd November, 1920, and not of the amended decree. Further, no application has till now been made by the appellant either for the execution of the amended decree or for the amendment of the execution petition. In these circumstances, so far as this execution petition now before us is concerned, time began to run from the date of the final decree and not from the date of the amendment, and the amendment does not enure to the benefit of the appellant. The records in the case reported in Thiagaraja Thevar V/s. Sambasiva Thevar (1933) 66 M.L.J. 492 : I.L.R. 57 Mad. 795, relied on by the appellant, show that, in that case, there was an application for amendment of the execution petition after the decree was amended. The decision therein, therefore, does not help the appellant.