TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Affirms Dismissal: Execution Application Time-Barred u/s 48; Rejects Continuation Argument; Costs Awarded to Respondents.</h1> <h3>Begam Sultan Versus Sarvi Begam</h3> Begam Sultan Versus Sarvi Begam - TMI Issues:- Application for execution barred by the three years' rule under Article 182 of the Limitation Act and the 12 years' rule under Section 48 of the Civil P.C.Analysis:1. The appeal arose from an execution matter where the respondents contended that the application for execution was time-barred under Article 182 of the Limitation Act and Section 48 of the Civil P.C. due to the passage of three and twelve years respectively since the decree was obtained.2. The objection was based on the circumstances surrounding the decree obtained against properties in Bulandshahr and Meerut in 1907, with subsequent events involving the sale of part of the property to Sarvi Begam and a gift made to Taimur Ali Shah in 1918.3. The decree-holder initially executed the decree against properties in Bulandshahr, and later applied for the transfer of the decree to Meerut. The present application for execution in Meerut was challenged by Sarvi Begam on grounds of limitation under Section 48 of the Civil P.C.4. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the application based on the objection related to the three years' rule but rejected the objection concerning the 12 years' rule.5. The appellant argued that the three years' rule should not apply as execution proceedings were ongoing against other properties jointly liable for the mortgage debt. However, the court found the application barred under Section 48 of the Civil P.C., emphasizing that the law in force at the time of the application governs the limitation period.6. The appellant's argument that the present application was a continuation of a previous one within the limitation period was rejected, as the previous application for transfer was not considered an execution application, and the properties in question were distinct. Legal precedents were cited to support this conclusion.7. Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, dismissing the appeal with costs, including fees on a higher scale, thereby upholding the limitation bar under Section 48 of the Civil P.C.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
