The legal representative of a deceased decree-holder can continue the execution proceedings, and the applications for such continuation are not barred by limitation.

A. R. SOMNATH IYER, J.

( 1 ) ON September 13, 1934, a money decree was made in favour of one Venkataswami, who was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 31/32-33 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore, against two defendants, Devashikhsymani Mudaliar and Varadaraja Mudaliar, All the parties to that suit are now dead.

( 2 ) ON an application presented on December 16, 1941, that decree was being executed by the deceased decree-holder Venkataswami in Execution Case No. 82 of 1941-42. His prayer in those execution proceedings was that that decree should be transferred to the appropriate Court in vellore for the decree being executed in that Court against certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtors and situate within that jurisdiction. Another application presented on September 9, 1946 for the execution of that decree by the deceased decree-holder Venkataswami was pending in the Court below in Ex. No. 135/46-47. Venkataswami the decree-holder died on December 20, 1948.

( 3 ) ON November 15, 1949, his legal representative made two applications, I. A. 2 and I. A. 5 in the court below. I. A. 2 was made by the legal representative of Venkataswami in Ex. No. 1,35/46-47 praying for permission of the Court to bring himself on record in place of the deceased decree-holder in the said execution case and in all Other proceedings relating to that matter so that he might continue the execution proceedings in place of the deceased decree-holder. I. A. 5 was an application made in Ex. No. 82 of 41-42 in which the said legal representative requested that lie might be brought on record in place of the deceased decree-holder in the said execution proceedings and in all other proceedings in execution of the decree pending in E. P. No. 135/46-47 of the District Court, Bangalore, and E. P. No. 91/45 and 99/46 pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Vellore, and also for permission to continue all those proceedings in place of the deceased decree-holder.

( 4 ) FOUR of the seven legal representatives of the first Judgment-debtor Devashikhamani mudaliar, objected to those two applications being granted. Their first objection was that the applicant in I. A. 2 and I. A. 5 was not the legal representative of the deceased decree-holder venkataswami and their second objection was that the application for his substitution as the legal representative of the deceased decree-holder Venkataswami was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge overruled both those contentions and from his orders the four legal representatives of the deceased first judgment-debtor Devashikhamani Mudaliar have appealed to this Court.

( 5 ) R. A. No. 60/53 relates to the order made on I. A. 2 in Ex. No. 135/46-47 and R. A. No. 61/53 relates to the order made on I. A. 5 in Ex. No. 82/41-42.

( 6 ) MR. Rangraj appearing for the appellants did not press the contention that the applicant in those interlocutory applications was not the legal representative of the deceased decree-holder ven-kalaswami, but he very strenuously contended before us that those two interlocutory applications were barred by limitation.

( 7 ) HIS contention is that the moment Venkataswami died on December 20, 1948, the execution proceedings started by him came to an end and that the two interlocutory applications presented by his legal representative who is the first respondent in those two appeals must be regarded as fresh execution applications presented by him on November 15, 1949. That being so, it is urged by Mr. Rangraj that those applications having been presented more than twelve years from the date of the decree, were time barred, as provided by Section 48 of the code o Civil Procedure.

( 8 ) MR. Rangraj was not able to point out any provision of law justifying his contention that art execution application presented by a decree-holder comes to an end with his death. On the contrary, Rule 12 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that nothing contained in Rules

Click Here to Read the rest of this document