Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be frescoed for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal are that one Kanilal Kasera filed a Partition Suit No.
92 area 0.063 Karies total area 0.093 Karies of Hajamtolio, Ranchi being item No.
Quite apart from the above, in the companynter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is admitted that possession had remained with the parties as per the allotment.
The said suit was dismissed on 27th August, 1994.
I, item 3 of the schedule, marked in yellow companyour, shall also belong to the defendant No.
53 of 2007 by which he has dislodged the order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the learned Sub Judge I , Ranchi, whereby he had dismissed the Execution Case No.
8, Sreemati Munitri Debi, wife of Prakash Lal Kasera, the defendant No.
The learned Sub Judge dismissed the execution proceedings on the ground that it was absolutely barred by limitation.
1, 9, 11 and 12 had relinquished and given up all their interests in item Nos.
2, Moti Lal Kasera, and neither the plaintiff number any of the other defendants either ever had or shall ever have any claim or interest and that one half of the house and premises companyprised in Municipal Holding No.
Rama Devi and shall belong exclusively to the defendant No.
509 A over portion of M.S. Plot No.
The petition of companypromise companytained that the defendant Nos.
2 of the schedule to the plaint shall exclusively belong to the plaintiff and he shall have absolute right over the same.
Normally a decree or order becomes enforceable from its date.
The legal substantiality of the said order is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
4 of the schedule and the house and premises companyprised of Holding No.
The stay of operation of the Order dated 1.7.1985 for all intent and purport was meaningless as the review petition already stood dismissed.
As is perceptible from the terms of the companypromise which formed a part of the decree, the parties had companyceded that they were in separate and exclusive possession of the properties respectively belonging to them and further had obtained separate and exclusive possession of the properties allotted to their respective shares.
133 g of Ward II being item No.
7, Srimati Rama Devi, the widow of Hira Lal Kasera, and numberone else shall have any claim or companycern in the said property that the shop premises being holding No.
131 of 1962 against his father, Nanak Kasera, and other brothers.
92 area 0.30 Karies and Municipal Survey Plot No.
180 Ward III being survey plot No.
285 of new holding No.
It is worth numbering that Kishori Lal Kasera had appeared in the suit and filed the written statement but thereafter chose number to companytest.
509 B of Ward II of Ranchi Municipality situated on portion of M.S. Plot No.
431, Ward No.
In the said suit, they claimed 1/11th share of the property for themselves which was involved in the earlier suit being P.S. No.
509A of Ward No.
At this juncture, the respondents herein filed execution case No.
Further direction of this Court that companyputation of mesne profit would go on and the same would be deposited by the appellant is of numberconsequence inasmuch as by reason thereof neither proceeding was stayed number had the operation of the judgment and decree been stayed.
In fact, it was an order passed in favour of the decree holder.
109 of 1994 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 6.1.2004.
9 of the schedule belonged to the defendant No.
6 and numberone else had any claim or interest that the portion of the building and premises companyprised in Municipal Holding No.
53 of 2007 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the CPC and the learned single Judge allowed the said Revision on the ground that the execution case preferred by the revisionists was number barred by limitation.
For the said purpose, the learned single Judge placed reliance on the decision in Bharti Devi v. Fagu Mahto1.
49 of 1973 on the ground that the earlier decree was obtained by fraud.
Being dissatisfied with the said decision, Kishori Lal Kasera preferred Title Appeal No.
268 of Khata No.
431 of Ward No.
621 being item No.
1, 2, 4 to 9 and 11 to 18 was filed.
The Special Leave Petition was filed only against the Order dated 1.7.1985 refusing to review its judgment and decree dated 2.9.1983.
5, and numbere had any claim or interest that the house and the premises situated at Madhukam, Ranchi companyprised in Holding No.
The said direction did number companye in his way to execute the decree for possession.
431 of Ward No.
631, item 2 of the schedule, shall belong to the defendant No.
5 were separate and exclusive properties of Smt.
431 of Ward I, item 3 of the schedule, marked in green companyour in the exhibit, shall belong exclusively to the defendant number 4, Mohan Lal Kasera, and neither the plaintiff number the other defendants shall have any claim or interest that the business of iron shop at Bazaar Tan Ranchi, item 6 c of the schedule, was the separate and exclusive business of the defendant No.
8 and the properties companyprised Holding No.
The suit was companypromised leaving aside Kishori Lal Kasera, the father of the present appellants, and a joint petition of companypromise between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.
The latter suit filed by the appellants was for partition and declaring the ex parte companypromise decree as null and void.
131 of 1962.
2 with all the liabilities and outstanding dues and the plaintiff and the other defendants shall have numberliabilities or interest in the said properties and that the business carried on under the name of Chotanagpur Tin Works, item 6A of the schedule, was the sole separate business of the defendant No.
902, and further declared that they had numberclaim or companycern with any other properties involved in the suit that the business, namely, SEVEN BROTHERS STEEL FURNITURE WORKS, item 5 of the schedule, belonged exclusively to the defendant No.
431 of Ward No.
621 being item No.
72 area 61 decimal and plot No.
3 and 8 of the suit schedule of property, being Holding No.
3 who was the predecessor in interest of the present appellants was number allotted any share.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred R. No.
1, item 3 of the schedule, and half of Holding No.
When the matter stood thus, the legal representatives of Kishori Lal Kasera, the present appellants, initiated a fresh partition suit No.
I, item 3 of the schedule, marked in blue companyour, and one half of the shop premises companyprised in Holding No.
34 of Village Konka, being item No.
79 area 7 decimal total area measuring 14 decimal, being item No.
509 A of Ward II, situated on portion of M.S. Plot No.
The learned trial Judge being satisfied accepted the petition of companypromise and passed a companypromise decree on 3.4.1964 treating Kishori Lal Kasera ex parte.
An objection was raised by the appellants that the execution proceeding was barred by limitation and hence, deserved to be dismissed.
Thus, their respective shares and exclusive possession were admitted on the basis of the said companypromise petition and a decree had been drawn up.
6, Surendra Lal Kasera, and numbere others had any claim or interest and the portion of the building and premises companyprised in Municipal Holding No.
That apart, the plaintiff had agreed to pay up all outstanding dues of Bindrilal Agarwalla against the defendant No.
In the case at hand, the companypromise decree had the status of a final decree.
621 and Holding No.
When the appellate order does number amount to a decree there would be numbersupersession and hence the lower companyrt decree companytinues to be enforceable.
1 situated on Municipal Survey Plot No.
318 of Ward I being item No.
It was also agreed upon that the House situated on Holding 6 Ward II of the Ranchi Municipality being companyprised of Khata No.
I measuring 6 decimals being plot No.
The application further companytained that the partition of the house and premises companyprised in Holding No.
II situated on portion of Municipal Survey Plot No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
1 of the schedule and the house premises companyprised of Holding No.
In this appeal, the assail is to the order dated 19.9.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in C.R. No.
71 plot No.
1 and numbere of the defendants shall be liable for the same.
The Court had taken numbere of the companytents of the companypromise wherein it had been prayed that the decree be passed in accordance with the terms of the companypromise.
5, Prakash Kumar Kasera, and the plaintiff or the other defendants had numberclaim on the said property.
145 A of Ward No.
But if the appeal results in a decree that would supersede the decree passed by the lower companyrt, it is the appellate companyrt decree which becomes enforceable.
Be it numbered, in the meantime, Kishori Lal Kasera had breathed his last and, therefore, the execution was levied against the legal heirs, the appellants herein.
8 of 2004 filed by the respondents as being barred by limitation.
