Madras HC Upholds Time Bar On Sangam’s Bid To Enforce 4.44-Acre Land Assignment Decree, Filed 8 Years Late

The Sangam obtained a decree in L.P.A. No. 139 of 1988 directing the State to assign it 4 acres and 44 cents in Survey No. 533 within four months of an application.

The four-month period expired on 28 February 1998.

After pursuing writ proceedings, the Sangam filed E.P. No. 69 of 2011 to enforce the decree; the Executing Court dismissed the petition as time-barred.

In a review of the writ appeal, the Division Bench had left limitation open, observing that the Sangam could bring its pursuit of the writ remedy to the competent court’s attention.

The Sangam challenged the dismissal in this civil revision petition.

Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a three-year limitation period for execution of a decree granting a mandatory injunction; the period runs from the date fixed for performance, or, where no date is fixed, when the decree-holder has notice that performance is refused.

A court’s grant of liberty to pursue a remedy does not, without more, enlarge or suspend the statutory limitation period.

The Court relied on Vellaiamma v. Subbulakshmi, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8344, and Arifa v. Abhiman Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2025 INSC 875, for the principle that liberty to approach a competent court or institute fresh proceedings does not displace limitation requirements.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act was also discussed; the Court noted that the petitioner had not sought exclusion of time and had simultaneously pursued execution proceedings.

The Court treated the decree’s direction to assign the land as a mandatory injunction and applied Article 135.

Since the four-month performance period expired on 28 February 1998, the Court held that the three-year limitation period expired on 1 March 2001; the execution petition, filed on 27 August 2009, was therefore out of time.

The review order had expressly left limitation undecided, so its liberty to pursue a remedy before the Executing Court did not extend the statutory period.

The Court also rejected any basis for excluding time spent in the writ proceedings: no such application had been filed, and the Sangam had pursued execution proceedings concurrently and had not acted promptly after the writ appeal was allowed.

Finding no error in the Executing Court’s order, it dismissed the civil revision petition, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.