Limitation for partition decree execution runs from pronouncement, and later engrossment on stamped paper does not postpone time-bar.

Limitation for execution of a final partition decree under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 runs from the date the decree becomes enforceable, which in this context is the date of pronouncement, not the later date when stamped paper is supplied and the decree is engrossed. The supply of stamp paper was treated as a party-controlled ministerial formality that does not suspend or postpone limitation. Sections 35 and 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 govern stamp duty and admissibility, but do not override or extend the statutory execution period fixed by Article 136. The execution petition was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether limitation for execution of a final partition decree under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 begins from the date the decree is pronounced and becomes enforceable, or only from the later date when stamped paper is supplied and the decree is engrossed and signed; (ii) Whether Section 35 read with Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 postpones the commencement of limitation for execution of such decree.

Issue (i): Whether limitation for execution of a final partition decree under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 begins from the date the decree is pronounced and becomes enforceable, or only from the later date when stamped paper is supplied and the decree is engrossed and signed.

Analysis: Article 136 prescribes a twelve-year period from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable. The expression "becomes enforceable" was held to bear its plain meaning and to refer to the date when the decree is capable of being enforced, not the date on which the decree-holder chooses to complete a ministerial formality. The supply of stamp paper for engrossing the final decree was treated as an act within the decree-holder's control and not an extraneous condition suspending limitation. A decree cannot remain unenforceable merely because a party delays compliance with a procedural requirement.

Conclusion: Limitation commenced from the date of the final decree as pronounced, and not from the later date of engrossment on stamped paper.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 35 read with Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 postpones the commencement of limitation for execution of such decree.

Analysis: Section 2(15) includes a final order for partition within the definition of an instrument of partition, and Section 35 imposes restrictions on unstamped instruments being admitted in evidence or acted upon. Those provisions were held to operate in the sphere of stamp duty and admissibility, not in the sphere of limitation. The Stamp Act could not override the time-bar expressly fixed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The final decree bears the date of the judicial pronouncement, and the later ministerial act of engrossment does not suspend the statutory period for execution.

Conclusion: The Stamp Act provisions do not extend or suspend limitation for execution of the decree.

Final Conclusion: The execution petition was time-barred, the contrary view was rejected, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a decree becomes enforceable when it is capable of execution, and a party-controlled ministerial formality such as supplying stamped paper for engrossing a partition decree does not postpone the commencement of limitation; provisions of the Stamp Act do not alter that limitation regime.

---