PARMESHRI Vs. ATTI
LAWS(P&H)-1957-2-11
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 08,1957

PARMESHRI Appellant
VERSUS
ATTI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties a short pedigree-table is given below :--HARNAM SINGH __________________________|________________ | | | | parmeshri Khushali Gurdit Kaur Budh=shrimati (appellant) (appellant) (appellant) Singh Atti (widow) (respodent)
(2.) SHRIMATI Atti , widow of Budh Singh who predeceased his father Harnam Singh. Harnam singh died in May, 1953 leaving three daughters, Parmeshri, Khushali and Gurdit Kaur, who are appellants, and Shrimati Atti widow daughter-in-law. On 8th July, 1946 Shrimati Atti sued her father-in-law Harnam Singh for possession of 85 kanals 19 marlas on account of her maintenance. The suit was filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. On 28th April 1947 the parties entered into a compromise and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The decree was to the effect that Harnam Singh shall give to Shrimati Atti grain weighing 25 maunds; 12 1/2 maunds of wheat was to be given in the month of Jeth and 12 1/2 maunds of maize in the month of Kartik. In the event of default the decree-holder was to get possession of one-half of the land in suit. It is admitted that no execution was taken out till 22nd June, 1955 when Shrimati Atti sought execution of the decree for the first time. The main contention of the appellants, who were brought on the record as the legal representatives of Harnam Singh deceased, was that the execution was barred by time as no step of any kind was taken with a view to execute the decree for the last eight years. The executing Court framed the following issues:-- " (1) Is the decree-holder entitled to possession of the land in dispute? (1a) Are the respondents bound by the decree? (2) Is the execution within time? (3) Relief?"
(3.) THE issue as to the appellants' being the legal representatives of the deceased Harnam Singh was not challenged and in view of this it was found that they as the legal representatives of harnam Singh were bound by the decree. It was only the second issue that has been the subject-matter of contest in the proceedings in the lower Courts as well as in this Court The executing Court upheld the contention of the appellants and came to the conclusion that the application for execution was barred by limitation in which according to the finding of the trial court the starting point of limitation was the date of first instalment for giving of grain in the month of Jeth following the decree, i. e. in June, 1947. The application dated 22nd June, 1955 was, therefore, held to be barred by limitation. The application was consequently dismissed but no order was passed as to costs. Against the above order of the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class, Dasuya, dated 17th April, 1956. Shrimati Atti filed an appeal in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Hoshiarpur which was allowed. The senior Subordinate Judge held that under Article 182 (7) of the Indian Limitation Act the execution application is within time and supported his finding with reference to a ruling of Privy council in Maung Sin v. Ma Tok 101 Ind Cas 736: (AIR 1927 PC 146) (A), and Ainul Haq Khan v. Mt Nawaban, AIR 1939 Oudh 281 (B ). It was held that Shrimati Atti need not have enforced her right to get grain for her maintenance twice a year. The appeal was allowed and the order of the trial Court was reversed and it was held that the execution application in question would proceed and the decree-holder would be entitled to obtain possession of the land in terms of the decree. Parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout. In this Court the appellants have come up in appeal seeking reversal of the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge and restoration of the order of the trial Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.