Chandra Reddy, C.J. - (1.)The question that calls for decision in this appeal is whether Order 32, rules 6 and 7, Civil Procedure Code, have any impact on the power of the manager of a joint Hindu family to give discharge within the purview of section 7 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908) when the guardian appointed by the Court is one other than the manager.
(2.)It arises in the following circumstances. A decree was passed by the High Court, Mauras, in Second Appeal No. 1297 of I946 on nth November, 1949 for Rs. 2,460-1-4 in favour of defendants 7 and 13 against defendants 2 to 6 in modification of the decree passed by the Courts below. Execution of this decree was levied on 8th December, 1952. The execution petition was resisted on the ground that it was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond three years of the date of the decree. To get over this difficulty, the decree-holders relied on the fact that the decree was actually signed by the Deputy Registrar on 10th December, 1949 and that, in any event, as one of the decree holders happened to be a person of unsound mind and the mother was appointed as Court guardian, the manager of the family was not in a position to give discharge within the connotation of section 7 of the Limitation Act. This defence did not prevail with the executing Court with the result that the execution petition was dismissed. This was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge, East Godavari, and in C.M.S.A. No. 60 of 1959 by our learned brother, Qamar Hassan, J. It is this order of the learned Judge that is brought, under appeal under clause (15) of the Letters Patent with his leave.
(3.)It is needless to say that the circumstance that the decree was signed by the Deputy Registrar on 10th December, 1949 does not come to the rescue of the decree- holders-appellants, as for purpose of computation of limitation, time runs from the date of judgment.