In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 8315–8316 of 2014, filed by Renjith K.G. and others against Sheeba, upholding a High Court order that set aside the execution of a partition decree and remanded the case to the trial court. The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan, held that the limitation period for executing a decree starts from the date of the decree’s passing and not from the date it is engrossed on stamp paper.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a partition suit filed in 1956 (O.S. No. 38 of 1956) by Padmakshy, the deceased original plaintiff, seeking partition and separate possession of her share in 13 immovable properties. A preliminary decree was passed in 1958, and the final decree was issued in 1970. However, the execution of the decree faced several legal hurdles.
A specific dispute arose over item no. 4 of the plaint schedule property, measuring 1 acre and 57 cents, located in Kodungallur Village, Kerala. The property, previously owned by Ayyappan, had a complicated history of mortgages and transfers. Over the years, various legal representatives and transferees, including Raghuthaman, the predecessor of the respondents, claimed rights to portions of the property.
In 1991, Padmakshy’s legal heirs filed an execution petition seeking possession of the partitioned property, which was ultimately granted in 1994. However, Raghuthaman filed objections, claiming an independent right to the property and arguing that the execution was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
Legal Issues Involved
The main legal issue in this case revolved around the limitation period for the execution of a partition decree. The appellants contended that the execution was timely, while the respondents, led by Raghuthaman, claimed that the execution was barred by the 12-year limitation period prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellants further argued that Raghuthaman, as a pendente lite transferee (a person who acquired the property while litigation was pending), had no independent right to challenge the execution.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision, which had set aside the order allowing the execution of the decree and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The key issue decided by the Court was the interpretation of the Limitation Act concerning the execution of partition decrees. The Court ruled that the limitation period begins from the date of the final decree’s passing, not from the date it is engrossed on stamp paper.
Justice R. Mahadevan, writing for the bench, observed:
“The engrossment of the final decree on stamp paper would relate back to the date of the decree. The beginning of the period of limitation for executing such a decree cannot be made to depend upon the date of the engrossment of such a decree on the stamp paper.”
The Court rejected the argument that the limitation period would start only after the decree was engrossed, stating that this would allow parties to delay the execution indefinitely by not furnishing the stamp paper.
The Court further held that a pendente lite transferee, even if not a party to the original suit, is entitled to raise claims under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) after being dispossessed. This allows third parties, like the respondent’s predecessor, to seek redress for their alleged rights in the property.
“The term ‘Stranger’ would cover within its ambit, a pendente lite transferee who has not been impleaded. The pendent lite purchaser has every right to defend his right, title, interest, and possession,” the Court stated, citing a previous decision in Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind.
Key Observations of the Court
– The Court emphasized the principle that limitation laws are intended to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure that parties seek their remedies promptly.
– The Court relied on the precedent set in Chiranji Lal v. Hari Das (2005), which categorically held that the limitation period begins from the date of the final decree, not its engrossment.
The Court dismissed the appeals and allowed the parties to raise their claims again in the trial court, including the respondent’s assertion of an independent right to the property.
The appellants were represented by Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, while Mrs. Nishe Rajen Shonker appeared on behalf of the respondent. The case originated in the Kerala High Court, which had previously ruled in favour of the respondents in E.F.A Nos. 6 and 7 of 1998, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Case Details
Case Name: Renjith K.G. & Others v. Sheeba
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 8315–8316 of 2014
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
