Nimmala Mahankali, minor by guardian Gorri Gangyya vs Kallakuri Seetharamiah and Another

The decree in the Original Suit was passed on the 28th September 1908. It gave the judgment debtor six months to pay the amount of the

decree : consequently the decree-holder could have executed the decree only after the 28th March 1909. On the 1st January 1909, the new CPC

came into force. Order XXXIV of the Code enacted new rules of procedure for the execution of mortgage-decree Rs. Against the decree of the

first Court, the decree holder appealed first to the District Judge and then to this Court. The final decree on second appeal was passed on the 29th

July 1910. An application for execution was presented on the 18th of July 1913, that is, within three years of the final appellate decree. The

present application was made on the 19th August 1914 for a decree absolute. It was objected to by the defendant that this application was barred

by time. The Subordinate Judge disallowed the objection and granted execution. Hence the appeal.

The first point taken by Mr. V. Ram adoss is that the Article applicable to the application is 181 of the Limitation Act and not Article 182. We

think he is right. Mr. Somayya contended that as on the date of the Munsif''s decree, the new Code had not eome into force and as it was well

settled under the Transfer of Property Act that applications for orders absolute were governed by Article 182, his client was entitled to apply for

the order absolute as if he were presenting an execution application. The point is one of first impression, but we think, after consideration, that the

contention is not well founded. On the date the right to apply for an order absolute accrued, the new code was in force and in matters of adjective

law the rules of procedure which are in force at the date the right to apply accrues, would govern all the applications. We think, therefore, that the

application was governed by Article 181 and not by Article 182. The decision in Hussain v. Karim ILR (1915) M. 544 is not against this view. In

that case, the right to apply had accrued under the Transfer of Property Act and the earlier applications were all made under the said Act. It was

held following Abdul Majid v. Jawahir Lal ILR (1913) A. 350, that such applications were in execution and that the decree holder having acquired

a right to apply in a particular manner under the Transfer of Property Act, that right was not taken away by the provisions of Order XXXIV. That

decision is not applicable to a case where a right accrues for the first time under the new Code which has provided a complete remedy for such

application. The decisions in Lakshmi Achi v. Subba Ram a Ayyar ILR (1915) M. 488, Beni Singh v. Berhamdeo Singh (1915) 19 C.W.N. 473

and Madho Ram v. Nihal Singh ILR (1915) A. 21 support this position, although the learned Judges in some of these cases have held that even

under the Transfer of Property Act, the application should have been under Article 181 of the Limitation Act.

The next point for consideration is whether under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, the time begins to run from the date fixed in the original

decree for payment or from the date of the decree in second appeal. The decisions are practically unanimous that where the appellate decree

confirms the decree of the first Court and is silent regarding the time fixed for payment by the court of first instance, a further period would not be

given for payment from the date of the appeal decree. Ram asami Kone v. Sundara Kone ILR (1907) M. 28 and Thathara Nannabha Chetty v.

Cuppal Krishnammal (1912) 16 I.C. 799. A further proposition follows from these judgments namely, that the party in default is not entitled to

reckon the time from the date of the appellate decree. The position of a party who is not bound to perform any act under the decree but who

appeals to get a larger benefit than what the first court''s decree granted him is not covered by any direct authority. The principle applicable to such

cases is that ordinarily the decree executable is the decree in appeal. See Manavik Ram an v. Unniappan ILR (1891) M. 170 and if the decree

holder has not disobeyed any directions given by the first court, he would be entitled to reckon the period in his favour from the date of the

appellate decree. The observations of Benson and Wallis, JJ. in Ram asami Kone v. Sundara Kone ILR (1907) M. 28, lend support to this

proposition and we think it is sound in principle and is in consonance with justice. We are therefore of opinion that even under Article 181, the right

to apply accrued to the respondent only on the passing of the decree in second appeal. It was conceded that if time accrued from the date of the

appellate decree, the present application would not be barred by Limitation. We must therefore hold that the order of the Subordinate Judge is

right and dismiss the appeal. Each party will bear his own costs in this Court.