• Today: November 01, 2025

shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande, AIR 1995 SC 1211

01 November, 2025
1251
Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant (1995) — Final Decree, Limitation & Partition | Easy Explainer

Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande, AIR 1995 SC 1211

Supreme Court of India 1995 AIR 1995 SC 1211 Civil Procedure • Partition 6–7 min read

By Gulzar Hashmi India • Published: 22 Oct 2025

Final Decree Order 20 Rule 18 Order 20 Rule 7 Limitation Partition
Hero image for Shankar Balwant Lokhande v Chandrakant case explainer

Quick Summary

Core holding: In partition suits, the court first declares shares (preliminary decree) and then divides property by metes and bounds (final decree). Limitation to supply stamp and engross the final decree starts when the decree is finalized, not when the court merely directs that a final decree be drawn. Without a Commissioner’s partition and an engrossed final decree, execution will fail.

  • Result: Trial court’s view restored; High Court set aside. Final decree to be engrossed and then executed.

Issues

  1. When does limitation begin for supplying stamp and engrossing the final decree?
  2. Can a “final decree” be treated as executed when no Commissioner has divided the property by metes and bounds?

Rules

  • Order 20 Rule 18 CPC: Partition suits need a preliminary decree (shares) followed by a final decree (exact division).
  • Order 20 Rule 7 CPC: A decree bears the judgment’s date; the judge signs only after ensuring conformity.
  • Section 2(2) CPC: A decree is final when it conclusively determines parties’ rights.
Exam Tip: Final decree = metes & bounds + engrossment + signature. Direction alone isn’t enough.

Facts — Timeline

View Image
Preliminary decree: Respondent gets 1/6th; Appellant 5/6th in suit properties.
Engrossment steps: Respondent supplies stamp; court engrosses and signs for his share. Appellant delays in supplying stamp.
Execution attempt: Appellant’s Darkhast dismissed as time-barred; HC holds there is no executable final decree.
Later move: Appellant files to supply stamps and asks for passing the final decree; trial court allows, HC reverses on limitation.
Supreme Court: Limitation runs from when the decree is finalized; directs passing and engrossment, then execution.

Arguments — Appellant vs Respondent

Appellant (Shankar)

  • Limitation cannot run before a true final decree exists for him.
  • Partition requires Commissioner’s metes-and-bounds division.
  • Right to have decree engrossed after supplying stamp.

Respondent (Chandrakant)

  • Direction to draw final decree had already issued; limitation began then.
  • Delay bars later request to supply stamps and execute.
  • Limitation start: From the point when the decree is finalized and ready to be engrossed—not from a mere direction.
  • Partition method: Final decree must reflect metes and bounds via a Commissioner; otherwise execution is defective.
  • Disposition: High Court set aside; trial court order restored. Trial court to pass and engross the final decree on stamps supplied by Appellant and then proceed to execution.
Result: Appeal allowed; parties to bear own costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Finality for limitation arises only when a final decree exists in law—i.e., after metes-and-bounds determination and readiness for engrossment and signature. Directions alone do not trigger limitation.

Why It Matters

  • Prevents premature limitation bars before a decree is truly executable.
  • Reinforces the two-stage structure in partition suits (preliminary → final).
  • Guides courts and parties on stamping, engrossment, and execution readiness.

Key Takeaways

  • 1 Limitation starts when the final decree is ready to be engrossed.
  • 2 Partition requires metes and bounds by a Commissioner.
  • 3 A mere direction to draw decree ≠ executable decree.
  • 4 Order 20 Rules 7 & 18 CPC anchor date and content of decrees.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “D-ME-SIGN”Direction ≠ Metes-&-bounds + Engross + Sign.

  1. Appoint Commissioner → get metes & bounds.
  2. Engross on proper stamp; ensure conformity with judgment.
  3. Judge signs; then limitation/execution timelines make sense.

IRAC Outline

Issue

When does limitation run for final decree engrossment, and what makes a partition decree executable?

Rule

Order 20 Rules 7 & 18 CPC; Section 2(2) CPC—final decree must conclusively determine rights and specify metes-and-bounds division.

Application

Direction alone did not create an engrossable, signed decree; without Commissioner’s partition, execution would be premature.

Conclusion

Limitation starts at finalization; decree must be engrossed and signed after metes-and-bounds partition to be executable.

Glossary

Preliminary Decree
Declares parties’ shares; rights are settled but not physically divided.
Final Decree
Specifies the exact parcels (metes and bounds) and is executable.
Engrossment
Writing the decree on proper non-judicial stamp paper as required.
Metes and Bounds
Precise boundary description used to divide immovable property.

Student FAQs

No. Limitation runs when the decree is finalized and ready for engrossment, not earlier.

Generally no. A Commissioner’s report enables metes-and-bounds division required for a final decree.

Under Order 20 Rule 7 CPC, a decree bears the date of the judgment and must mirror it before the judge signs.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Civil Procedure Partition Limitation

Comment

Nothing for now