Period of limitation on a compromise decree.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 27 October 2009
This query is : Resolved
Respected Sir,
This is a Civil Matter and I need whether the decree is in limitation period or not?
Simply I am hereby giving the details.
I filed a suit for Specific performance and the same was dismissed. As against the said dismissal I preferred an appeal before the High Court. While pending the Civil Appeal, both the parties have entered into a compromise memo and accordingly the said appeal was ended. After that due to some reasons, again both the parties have entered into another compromise petition before the lower court and the said compromise was recorded on 21-02-1985.While passing the said 2nd compromise decree, the court has instructed the DHR/Plaintiff, “in case of default of the JDRs/Defendants, the DHR/Plaintiff is at liberty to approach the court (lower court) and get the sale deed duly registered through court. But the DHR/plaintiff instead of approaching the lower court approached the revenue authorities for regularization of the alienation on the basis of the said compromise And accordingly, the Revenue authorities had regularized the said alienation, as there is a provision to go and regularize.
Now the contention of the JDRS/defendants are there was no notice served on them by the revenue authorities, before passing the order. The JDRS/Defendants have challenged the same before all the revenue authorizes and as well as the single judge of High court. When it was came to Double bench of High Court, an order was passed against the DHR/plaintiff stating that the authorities below are not followed the rules. And an SLP has been filedby DHR/Plaintiff and the same is pending before the Supreme Court.
Now the pioint is:-
1. From the date of 2nd compromise decree ie., on 21-02-1985 both the parties are defending their case in courts, even till today.
2. So now is there any possibility to execute the 2nd compromise decree by DHR/plaintiff, now?
3. Or the said decree is time barred?
4. Even now also they are not claiming their rights over the said lands.
Plz. Clarify.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 27 October 2009
The 2nd compromise is not time barred and it can be got made part of decree and cases can be got settled keeping in view its terms
niranjan
(Expert) 27 October 2009
Once the compromise Decree is drawn, what remains in the courts now ? Only orders of revenue authorities are challenged.In my humble opinion, the compromise Decree on 21.2.85, but sale deed is not executed and so there is no transfer and the said decree cannot be executed after 12 years.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 28 October 2009
Respected Raj Kumar jee, Namaskar.
Thanks for ur opinion. But I want to clarify one thing form u. Have u any Supreme court findings against the limitation period? If yes, plz.refer the citation/s for our perusal. Thanks.
Suhail suhail
(Expert) 28 October 2009
Well i agree with Mr.Niranjan,when the compromise was reached and decree passed in the year,the same was to be executed Under order - 21,C.P.C,within a period of 12 years.That means the decree was supposed to have been executed by or before 21.2.1997,and the execution of civil court decree cannot be executed by any revenue.Sec-54 of C.P.C. is clear in this behalf,in execution proceedings it is the decree court to get the decree executed.And after the suit is decreed the time period begins from the passing of decree,which varies as to the nature of decree,i.e weather the decree is a money decree,or pertaining to properties movable or immovable,etc.here the decree seems for immovable property then the time period is 12 years.In this behalf there is a clear judgment of Supreme Court;SCC(1)-2001 at 469. Qute; A decree-holder after securing a decree went into
slumber and remained as such for a pretty long period like a
Rip Van Winkle. When he awoke he realised that his decree
became rust corroded and lost its enforceability due to
efflux of a number of years.
held;
The execution process
initiated by the appellant long after the expiry of 12 years
from 1.8.1973 is thus irretrievably barred. Hence no
interference is called for. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 28 October 2009
Respected Niran jee, Namasker. Thanks for ur ur opinion.
But I want to clarity about limitation on a decree. Whether the said decree is having limitation of 12 years or not. Any how in this, have u any Supreme court citation/s. if yes plz. refer the same. Since you have given negative opinion and whereas Mr. Raj Kumar Sir has given positive opinion on one aspect. How . So even if u r giving negative opinion, no worry about it. But we should know the correct position of the case law. Plz. refer the Supreme court decisions if any in this regard.
Thanks.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 28 October 2009
Respected Bilal Autshi Ji, Namaskar.
Here i am clarifying you the following:-
1) After taking the 2nd compromise decree I went to Revenue authorities for regularization of the alienation, as there is a specific porivision in the said Act, not for CPC.
2) Even after taking the 2nd compromise decree, both the parties are defending the litigation from the quasi-judicial courts to Honourable High Court and as well as the Supreme court.So nobody is keeping quite with out defending the case from all courts.
3) The JDRS/defendants have not defending their rights over the said lands but they are only defending that no notice was served on them before passing the order by the lower revenue authorites.
this is the case. Hence plz. reply.
Thanks.
Suhail suhail
(Expert) 29 October 2009
Well Mr.Anonymous,let me place it like this;
I have thrashed this type of a matter.An award was passed upon the Arbitration of properties landed as well as other,the land included agricultural,as well as commercail by the arbitrator under the The Arbitration Act 1940.The award was confirmed and made rule of Court by way of decree,by the Hon'ble High-Court,(as under the arbitration act 1940 {old act},the award was to be registered and then submitted before the court of jurisdiction to confirm it and pass the decree accordingly).The partition was among the brothers where the younger brother was given his rightful share,(i cannot place now every thing herein though precisely i will explain to my little knowledge)and after going through the case history,i found that at some places the mutation was enforced by revenue authorities,but major portion of property which would had been easily taken by the other two brothers was not transferred in their names,a the had not executed the decree,and it was more than 12 years of time when the case came before me,i made restoration of properties prior to the passing of decree,and since some of the revenue authorities had acted upon the decree suo moto and mutated the land,i had to get them quashed before the same court.However my humble request is that never went in to arguments or submit queries upon queries,as this is just a social forum and simply i request to submit a query which is not based on the proving or dis proving of any case,but i think we can give our opinion, every lawyer has its own angle of vision and he or she will act accordingly,and it is him or her who can better handle cases as actually it is him or her who can be best of judge to decide mode of respective approach.
Listen my dear Sir i can understand you will be in worries,but you are confused about issues.Anyway you asked Mr. Niranjan to fortify his view by supporting judgment from The Apex Court Of Country.Just that is there,go through the judgement as it explains everything and i can never assure you the best of opinion in comparison to your engaged lawyer.
I request humbly once again that please seek opinions but never try to make this a court where you will satisfy yourself by majority opinion.I hope you your wisdom will be much efficacious in understanding the request of mine.
Thanks.
