YESWANT DEORAO DESHMUKH versus WALCHAND RAMCHAND KOTHARI

YESWANT DEORAO DESHMUKH versus WALCHAND RAMCHAND KOTHARI

The execution application was barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, as the fraud found did not prevent knowledge of the right to apply for execution but only concealed ownership of specific property; Section 18 of the Limitation Act did not apply. The period of limitation cannot be extended or restarted except as specifically provided in the statute. The exclusion of time spent in insolvency proceedings was not permitted, and the decree was not a conditional decree to defer the start of limitation.

Parties
Appellant: Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh; Respondent: Walchand Ramchand Kothari
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 December 1950
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 281 of 1947
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Fraudulent Concealment, Limitation in Execution of Decrees, Conditional Decrees, Starting Point of Limitation, Section 18 Limitation Act, Section 48 Civil Procedure Code, Article 182 Limitation Act, Article 181 Limitation Act, Exclusion of Time in Limitation
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Execution of Decree Fraudulent Concealment Limitation in Execution of Decrees Conditional Decrees Starting Point of Limitation Section 18 Limitation Act +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh

Appellant

Walchand Ramchand Kothari

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 281 of 1947

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution application is barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
  2. 2 Whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act applies where fraud prevents execution against specific property, but not knowledge of the right to execute.
  3. 3 Whether the decree is a conditional decree for limitation purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The execution application was barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, as the fraud found did not prevent knowledge of the right to apply for execution but only concealed ownership of specific property; Section 18 of the Limitation Act did not apply. The period of limitation cannot be extended or restarted except as specifically provided in the statute. The exclusion of time spent in insolvency proceedings was not permitted, and the decree was not a conditional decree to defer the start of limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Bombay High Court affirmed
  • Appellant to pay costs