Judgment :- The Sub Judge, Kasaragod overruled the objection of the revision petitioner that the execution petition is barred by limitation. Revision petitioner contended that the execution petition filed beyond the period of 12 years from the date of the judgment viz. 20-8-1977 is barred by limitation. The E.P. was filed only on 10-3-1990. Contention of the respondents is that the period of limitation of 12 years as provided under Article 136 of the Limitation Act runs from the date on which the decree becomes enforceable and as the non judicial stamp papers were produced onIy on 31-7-1989 with notice to the opposite side the time would run only from that date. 2. In the preliminary judgment one month's time was given for production of non judicial stamp papers. Contention of the revision petitioner is that as it was not produced within the stipulated time respondents cannot contend that the period of limitation would run only from the date of actual production of the non judicial stamp papers for engrossing the decree on it. Non judicial stamp papers were produced in the Court on 31-7-1989 with notice to the revision petitioner and the decree was engrossed on it. Revision petitioner did not object to the Court permitting the production of the nun judicial stamp papers on the ground that it is belated. Having not done so, he cannot at a later stage contend that "time would run from the date fixed originally for the production of non judicial stamp papers. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the decree did not mention the value of the non judicial stamp papers necessary for engrossing the decree and as it was adjudicated only later and as the stamp papers were produced only on 31-7-1989 it can never be held that the execution petition is barred by limitation. 3. The settled legal position is that decree for partition becomes enforceable only when it is engrossed on requisite non judicial stamp papers. A decree of the Court effecting partition squarely comes under S.3(k) of the Kerala Stamp Act. S.3(k) reads: "instrument of partition means any instrument whereby co-owners of any properly divide or agree to divide such property in severally, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any Revenue Authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition." 4. S.3(k) reads: "instrument of partition means any instrument whereby co-owners of any properly divide or agree to divide such property in severally, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any Revenue Authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition." 4. In Board of Revenue v. Moideen, AIR 1956 Madras 207) Full Bench of Madras High Court held: "There can be no doubt that a final decree for partition passed by a civil court is an instrument of partition as defined in cl.(15) of S.2 of the Stamp Act. It follows that such decree can only be engrossed on stamp papers of sufficed value." The above decision has referred to Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Bejoy Chand Mahatap (32 Calcutta 483) where it was held that a decree for partition to be operative must be engrossed on stamp paper. as required by the Stamp Act and until the judge signs the decree so engrossed, it cannot be said that the suit has terminated. S.34 provides that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be acted upon by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped. As the final decree for partition is an instrument of partition, it has to be engrossed on stamp papers of sufficient value and till that is done it cannot be enforced. Article 136 of the Limitation Act provides 12 years as the period of limitation for the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction or order of any civil court. So far as a partition decree is concerned the indubitable position is that time begins to run from the date when the decree becomes enforceable. It becomes enforceable only when the decree is engrossed on requisite stamp papers. It is useful to refer to Bholanath v. Madanmohan (AIR 1988 Call) where a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held: "The decree for partition does not become enforceable until the same is engrossed on requisite stamp papers and, therefore, the period of limitation for its execution does not begin to run under Art.136 of the Limitation Act until the decree is so drawn up." As the final decree was drafted only on 24-8-1989, it is not possible to hold that the execution petition is barred by limitation. There is no merit in the contention of the revision petitioner that the E.P. is barred by limitation. The C.R.P. is dismissed. No. costs.