Doctrine of Merger Applies to Execution Proceedings – Para 24 Section 53A Not Applicable When Agreement Executed During Pending Litigation – Para 10 Executing Court Cannot Modify Decree But Can Extend Time If No Limit Fixed – Para 7 Limitation Period Runs From Appellate Court’s Judgment, Not Trial Court’s Judgment – Para 8

Held – Supreme Court Affirmed the High Court’s Decision, Dismissing the Appeal.

Doctrine of Merger – Appellate Court’s Decree Took Precedence Over the Trial Court’s Judgment. No Inordinate Delay – Execution Petition Was Filed Within Limitation From the Date of the Final Appellate Decision in 1993. No Protection Under Section 53A – Appellant Knew of the Pending Litigation Before Entering the Sale Agreement. Executing Court Did Not Modify the Decree – Extension of Time Was Permissible Since No Time Limit Was Fixed by the Appellate Court.

Appeal Dismissed. No Costs.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition Dismissed as No Substantial Question of Law Raised.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 148, Order 47 Rule 1 – Extension of Time by Executing Court Not Impermissible When No Time Limit Was Fixed by Appellate Court.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – Protection Under Part Performance Doctrine Not Available When Purchaser Had Prior Knowledge of Pending Litigation.

Subjects:

Doctrine of Merger – Execution of Decree – Limitation Period – Section 53A Transfer of Property Act – Part Performance – Lis Pendens – Validity of Will – French Personal Law – Inordinate Delay – Appellate Court Supremacy

Facts

a. Nature of the Litigation – Dispute Over Execution of a Decree Related to Inherited Property and the Rights of a Purchaser Under a Sale Agreement.

b. Who Approached the Court & What Remedy Was Sought? – The Appellant Filed a Civil Revision Petition Against the Execution of a Decree That Ordered His Eviction From the Property.

c. Reason for Filing the Case – The Appellant Contended That the Executing Court Illegally Modified the Decree by Extending the Time for Deposit of Money and That Execution Was Barred Due to Delay.

d. Prior Decisions –

• 1986 – Trial Court Declared the Will Void to the Extent of 7/8th Share & Ordered Eviction.
• 1993 – Appellate Court Modified the Decree and Reduced the Share of the Will Beneficiary.
• 2014 – High Court Held That the Doctrine of Merger Applied and Dismissed the Appellant's Objections.

Issues

1. Whether the Executing Court Could Extend the Time for Depositing Money Without Altering the Decree?
2. Whether the Doctrine of Merger Applied, Making the Appellate Court’s Decree the Final Executable Order?
3. Whether the Execution Petition Was Time-Barred?
4. Whether Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act Applied to the Sale Agreement?

Submissions/Arguments

a. Appellant’s Contentions

• Extension of Time by Executing Court Resulted in Alteration of Decree.
• Execution Was Time-Barred as 12 Years Had Lapsed Since the Trial Court’s Decree.
• Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act Protected His Possession.

b. Respondents’ Contentions

• Appellate Court’s Decree Superseded Trial Court’s Decision, and Execution Was Within Limitation.
• Section 53A Did Not Apply as the Sale Agreement Was Executed During Pendency of the Suit (Doctrine of Lis Pendens).
• Executing Court Had the Power to Extend the Time Since No Fixed Time Was Mentioned in the Appellate Court’s Decree.