Limitation for execution of a partition decree runs from final decree, not later stamp-paper engrossment.

For a partition decree, limitation for execution under Article 136 of the Limitation Act begins when the final decree becomes legally enforceable, not when it is later engrossed on stamp paper and signed. The Court held that the word "enforceable" means capable of execution, so ministerial steps such as furnishing stamp paper do not postpone or suspend limitation. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act operates in a different field and does not control the commencement of limitation for execution. Accordingly, delay by the decree-holder in completing stamp-related formalities cannot extend time, and the execution petition was held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for a decree for partition, limitation for execution under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 begins from the date of the final decree or only from the date on which the decree is engrossed on stamp paper and signed; and whether Section 35 read with Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 suspends the running of limitation.

Analysis: Article 136 prescribes a period of twelve years from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable. The expression "becomes enforceable" was held to bear its ordinary meaning and to denote the point when the decree is capable of being enforced, not the later date on which ministerial acts such as supplying stamp paper are completed. In a partition decree, once the final decree is passed and the rights of the parties are crystallised, the decree is enforceable unless the decree itself is conditional upon some future event. Delay or default by the decree-holder in furnishing stamp paper cannot postpone the commencement of limitation or suspend its running. The Indian Stamp Act was held to operate in a different field, and Section 35, which bars acting upon an insufficiently stamped instrument, does not control the commencement of limitation under Article 136. Earlier contrary views under the old Limitation Act or in fact-specific settings were treated as inapplicable.

Conclusion: Limitation commenced from the date of the final decree, not from the date of engrossment on stamp paper, and the execution petition was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The decree-holder could not defer limitation by delaying compliance with the ministerial requirement of supplying stamp paper, and the execution was held to be time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a decree becomes enforceable when it is legally capable of execution on the passing of the final decree, and a ministerial requirement under the Stamp Act does not suspend or postpone the commencement of limitation.

---