Decided on March 04,1967

Mathai Kochumman Appellant
Chacko Mathew Respondents


P.T.RAMAN, J. - (1.) NO error of law and no conflicting finding of fact. The decree referred to in item (1) of column 3 of article 182 of the Limitation Act of 1908 is obviously the decree referred to in column 1, namely, the decree sought to be executed, and, where there has been an appeal it is well settled that the original decree merges in the appellate decree so that it is the latter alone that is, or can be, executed. Likewise, where there has been a review or amendment.
(2.) In all these cases, the date of the decree referred to in item (1) would be the date of the appellate decree, or the decree made after review, or the attended decree as the case may be, and items (2) (3) and (4) only makes this clear by stating what is the date of the decree that is executed in cases where there has been an appeal, or a review, or an amendment. It follows that, to get the benefit of six year period under column 2, it is not enough if a copy of the original decree has been registered in cases where there has been an appeal, review or amendment. A copy of the decree actually put in execution, namely, the decree made in appeal or after review or amendment must be registered. In this case the appellate decree was not registered and the appellant decree -holder cannot get six year's time merely because the original decree -holder registered -see Bhargavan v Halima Bivt. He can get only three years, @@@ so, it is not disputed that his application for execution was @@@ court below as barred by time @@@ with costs.;

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