1.
Is the acknowledgment of a debt due by a Joint Hindu family by its erstwhile karta
after the disruption of the joint family status, sufficient to save creditor's claim from
being barred by limitation against the members? will it make any difference if (a) the
creditor was not informed about the disruption of the family; (b) the family is a
trading family.
2. Two suits are tried together. The matter in issue in the two suits is the same. a
common judgment is delivered, but two separate decrees are prepared. an appeal is
preferred against only one of the decrees. In the appeal, it is contended that the decree
and judgment against which no appeal is preferred operate as res judicata. Discuss the
validity of the contention.
3. A suit was decreed in favour of X and against Y on 20.3.2023. On the request of X
the court staff prepared the decree on 15.5.2023. Y knew that no decree was prepared
upto 15.5.2023. Y applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree on
7.7.2023 which were ready on 10.9.2023 and were received by Y on 11.9.2023. Y
filed appeal in the high court on 15.9.2023. X contends on the ground that the appeal
is time barred. Decide with the help of relevant provisions of law and the case law.
4. Can the trial court play a significant role, under the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure, to reduce the number of issues of contention between the parties to suit for
the purpose of trial? Explain with the help of relevant provisions of the code?
5. Can the objection as to the jurisdiction of a court be taken at any stage of the
proceedings or it has to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity? Explain by
giving reasons.
6. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear the matter and decide upon the issues
raised in the plaint. The plaint is the source of issues. Explain this statement and
narrate the suits which are not of civil nature.
7. Review is not an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous discussion is rehearsed and
corrected. Comment and highlight the distinction between review and appeal.
8. The appellate court while hearing an appeal noticed that the decree passed by a lower
court was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. In another appeal the appellate court also
noticed that a district court in its decree passed, usurped the jurisdiction that was
exclusively conferred on a subordinate court. explain whether appeals are sustainable
and are there any limitations on appeals?
9. The exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain civil causes should not be
readily inferred unless the relevant statute contains an express provision to that effect,
or leads to a necessary and inevitable implication of that nature. discuss provisions
with the relevant case laws.
A suit was filed on 13-7-1972 for the recovery of Rs 10000 in the sub-court and was
partly decreed. On the date of suit an appeal lay to the high court against the judgment
and decree of the sub court but during the pendency of the suit the civil courts act was
amended with effect from 1.11.1972 increasing the pecuniary limit for entertaining
appeals to the district court from rs 7500 to rs 15000. The plaintiff preferred an appeal
to the district court. No objection was raised regarding the jurisdiction of the district
court to entertain the appeal. the district court awarded a large amount. when the
decree-holder sought to execute the decree, the judgment debtor objected to the
execution of the decree for the amount over and above that which was decreed by the
sub-court on the ground that the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal and its decree was null and void. consider the validity of the objection.
Direction was given in a decree. It was to the effect, that the decree-holder should in
execution proceed in the first instance against a decree in his favour in another
mortgage suit and if he was not in a position to realise anything, then it will be open to
him to proceed against the assets of the judgment-holder and can be reckon the starting
point for the purpose of computing the limitation from the date when he failed to secure
the fruits of the decree in the mortgage suit?
The question is: when does the limitation period for execution start when a decree imposes
a condition or direction to first proceed against another source?
According to Section 47 of the CPC, questions arising between the parties concerning the
execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree can be determined by the court executing the
decree. In your scenario, where a direction was given for the decree-holder to first proceed
against another mortgage suit, this indicates that the court intended to prioritize recovery
from that source.
The question deals with the complexities of limitation period in executing a mortgage
decree and the sequential approach prescribed for recovery. According to Article 136 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for execution of decree is 12 years from the date
when the decree becomes enforceable.
Legal Position on Starting Point of Limitation
The direction in the decree mandates a sequential approach for
execution:
First, proceed against decree in another mortgage suit.
Second, proceed against judgment-debtor's assets only after failure of first
step.
‘When decree becomes enforceable’ is a crucial phrase. If the decree itself delays
enforceability by imposing a condition precedent, the limitation period does not begin
until that condition is satisfied or frustrated.
Nature of the Direction in the Decree:
The decree directs the decree-holder to:
1. First execute another decree in a mortgage suit (where he is a decree-
holder),
2. Only if unsuccessful, proceed against the assets of the present judgment-
debtor.
➤ Legal Effect:
This is essentially a conditional or restricted decree, i.e., the right to proceed against the
judgment-debtor does not arise immediately, but only after the condition fails (i.e., the
mortgage decree yields nothing).
⏳ So, the decree does not become enforceable in respect of the judgment-debtor’s assets
until the mortgage execution fails.
In terms of computing limitation from when he failed to secure fruits from the mortgage suit,
it would be prudent for the decree-holder to document this failure clearly. The starting point
for computing limitation would typically commence from that date when he could not
recover anything from the first source as directed by the court.
Analysis of the Starting Point
The doctrine of constructive res judicata under Section 11 of CPC suggests that
once a decree is passed, its terms become binding on parties.
However, when decree prescribes a conditional sequence:
The limitation period cannot start running until the condition precedent is
fulfilled.
The right to execute against judgment-debtor's assets accrues only after failure
of first step.
Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court has consistently held that:
Limitation starts from when the right to execute becomes enforceable.
Where execution is subject to conditions, time starts running only after
conditions are met.
Legal Implications
In this case:
The starting point for limitation would be the date when decree-holder failed
to realize money from first mortgage suit.
This interpretation aligns with Section 3 of the Limitation Act which focuses
on when the right to sue accrues.
The sequential nature of execution prescribed in the decree makes the failure to secure fruits
of the first mortgage decree the valid starting point for computing limitation. This
interpretation upholds the principles of natural justice and ensures meaningful execution of
decrees while protecting rights of both parties. The approach is consistent with Article 141 of
the Constitution which makes Supreme Court's interpretation binding on all courts.
Venkata Ranga Ayyangar v. Ranga Ayyangar, AIR 1925 Mad 834
Held:
Where a decree directs that the decree-holder must first proceed against certain property or
decree, and then only proceed against the judgment-debtor’s other property if unsuccessful,
then limitation for executing against the latter starts only when the decree-holder fails to
recover from the first source.
📌 Govind Das v. Sarju Prasad, AIR 1927 All 417
The decree becomes enforceable only when the contingency occurs (i.e., failure of the initial
direction), and not when the decree is passed.
