PALADUGU VEERA RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. PALADUGU PARASURAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question of limitation. On the 9 March, 1922, the first respondent obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada a money decree against the appellant, the appellant's uncle and a cousin, who were the members of an undivided family. The amount for which judgment was obtained was Rs. 3,735, but a mistake was made in drawing up the decree and the figure inserted was Rs.200. It was not until the 16 July, 1928, that the mistake was corrected under the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 6 December, 1933, the respondent caused the decree to be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur for execution and on the 5 March, 1934, he applied for attachment of certain immovable property. The appellant objected to the attachment on the ground that the property was his personal property and the decree had only made him liable to the extent of his interest in the family property. This objection was well founded and the attachment was raised. On the 12 November, 1935, the respondent filed another application for execution. Here he asked for the attachment of two decrees, one obtained by the appellant alone and the other in conjunction with his cousin. It was contended that the application was barred by the law of limitation and the contention was upheld by the Subordinate Judge. An appeal followed to the District Judge of Guntur who held that the decree was barred so far as it related to the sum of Rs. 2,200 but it was enforceable to the extent of Rs. 1,535, the difference between the Rs. 2,200 and Rs. 3,735, the figure which was inserted in the decree as the result of the amendment.

(2.) It is obvious that the District Judge's decision was wrong in allowing execution of part of the decree. The respondent must be entitled to the full amount, if entitled to anything. When the provisions of Section 48 of the Civil P. C. and Art. 182 of the Limitation Act are considered it however becomes manifest that the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the decree was time barred.

(3.) Section 48(1) of the Civil P. C. reads as follows: Where an application to execute a decree not being a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of twelve years from- (a) the date of the decree sought to be executed, or (b) where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, the date of the default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which the applicant seeks to execute the decree.