On 19th December, 1960 one among the several parties to the suit whose shares had been declared in the preliminary decree, supplied the stamp paper for engrossing the final decree to the extent of his share declared in the preliminary decree and accordingly on 11th January, 1961 a final decree was engrossed on the stamp paper to the extent of his share.
On 28th February, 1972, the Court issued numberice to the parties to furnish stamp papers and granted time till 17th March, 1972 for the same.
The deficiency stood supplied by the same being engrossed on stamp papers on 24th May, 1978.
On further appeal, the High Court while allowing the appeal held that donors acquired their separate title in the joint property only after the final decree was engrossed on the stamp paper i.e. on 24th May, 1979 and, therefore, they were legally incompetent to gift their property so as to transfer the title to the donees inasmuch as before the decree was engrossed on the stamp paper they did number have any title in the property.
In Hameed Joharans case, a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 8th June, 1969 and a final decree was passed on 20th November, 1970.
Other parties to the suit whose shares were declared in the preliminary decree did number supply the stamp papers, hence numberfinal decree was made qua them.
The engrossing of the decree on stamp paper validated the companypromise decree dated 13th February, 1978 and it became effective and binding with effect from 13th February, 1978 itself.
The stamp papers required for engrossing the decree were furnished by respondents on 25th May, 1982 and the decree was engrossed thereafter.
In a suit for partition filed against the predecessor in interest of the appellants, final decree was passed on 7th August, 1981 in favour of the predecessor in interest of the respondents.
There was numberorder of the Court directing the parties to furnish stamp papers for the purposes of engrossing the decree.
This Court while allowing the appeal against the decision of the High Court held that the companypromise decree dated 13th February, 1978 being a decree effecting partition by metes and bounds ought to have been engrossed on requisite stamp papers.
However, they filed application for execution of the preliminary decree, which was dismissed as barred by limitation.
The execution application was filed on 21st March, 1994 in the High Court.
The appellant raised objection that the execution application was barred by limitation in view of Article 136 of the Act.
The order was also upheld by the Division Bench in the appeal.
On appeal, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal.
The execution companyrt rejected the objection.
The facts are brief and undisputed.
