Compromise decree in partition suits becomes immediately executable when shares and possession are fully determined; execution may still be time-barred.

A compromise decree in a partition suit is a final decree when the compromise itself fully determines the parties' shares and grants separate possession, leaving nothing further to be worked out by metes and bounds or further inquiry. It is then immediately executable. Limitation for execution runs from the date the decree becomes enforceable, and mere pendency of later challenge proceedings does not stop time absent a stay or postponed enforceability. On that basis, the execution petition filed long after the decree was time-barred, and the executing court's dismissal was upheld as the High Court's contrary order could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the compromise decree in the partition suit was a final decree executable without any further final decree proceedings; (ii) Whether the execution petition was barred by limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the compromise decree in the partition suit was a final decree executable without any further final decree proceedings.

Analysis: The compromise terms settled the entire dispute and allotted specific properties to the parties. The parties ed separate and exclusive possession of their respective shares, and nothing was left to be worked out by further inquiry or by metes and bounds. In such a situation, the decree was not merely preliminary but embodied a complete and final partition.

Conclusion: The compromise decree was a final decree and was immediately executable.

Issue (ii): Whether the execution petition was barred by limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: A decree becomes enforceable from its date unless its operation is stayed or the decree itself postpones enforceability. Mere pendency of a suit or appeal challenging the decree does not arrest limitation in the absence of any stay. Since the compromise decree was final and executable from the date it was passed, the execution filed long afterwards was beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The execution petition was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order was unsustainable, the executing court was right in dismissing the execution, and the decree-holder could not avoid limitation by relying on the pendency of the later challenge proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A compromise decree in a partition suit is executable as a final decree when the compromise itself finally determines the shares and possession of the parties, and limitation for execution runs from enforceability of that decree unless its operation is stayed by a competent court.

---