BIMAL KUMAR & ANOTHER versus SHAKUNTALA DEBI & OTHERS

BIMAL KUMAR & ANOTHER versus SHAKUNTALA DEBI & OTHERS

The compromise decree dated 03.04.1964 was a final decree, as parties had admitted exclusive possession and division of properties; no final decree proceedings remained. There was no stay on the decree or subsequent litigation to block its enforcement. The execution application filed by the respondents was indubitably barred by limitation, as Article 136 of the Limitation Act stipulates a twelve-year period, and no time consumed by subsequent suits or appeals could be excluded in absence of a stay.

Parties
Appellant: Bimal Kumar; Appellant: Another Appellant; Respondent: Shakuntala Debi; Respondent: Other Respondents
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Revision Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compromise Decree, Partition Suit, Execution Proceedings, Limitation Period Under Article 136
Civil Procedure Partition Limitation Compromise Decree Partition Suit Execution Proceedings Limitation Period Under Article 136

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bimal Kumar

Appellant

Another Appellant

Appellant

Shakuntala Debi

Respondent

Other Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Revision Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the compromise decree dated 03.04.1964 was a final or preliminary decree requiring completion of final decree proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the execution proceeding initiated was barred by limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Ratio Decidendi

The compromise decree dated 03.04.1964 was a final decree, as parties had admitted exclusive possession and division of properties; no final decree proceedings remained. There was no stay on the decree or subsequent litigation to block its enforcement. The execution application filed by the respondents was indubitably barred by limitation, as Article 136 of the Limitation Act stipulates a twelve-year period, and no time consumed by subsequent suits or appeals could be excluded in absence of a stay.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order passed by High Court in Civil Revision set aside
  • Order of executing court dismissing Execution Case No. 8 of 2004 as barred by limitation restored