SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(Pat) 182

PATNA HIGH COURT
U.N.Sinha, J.
Lal Kumari Devi
Versus
Fulmati Kuer
Civil Revision No. 625 of 1964 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 15, 1964

The heirs of a deceased decree-holder can continue the execution proceedings without obtaining a succession certificate.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 47 - EXECUTION OF DECREE - DECREE-HOLDER DYING DURING EXECUTION - HEIRS CONTINUING EXECUTION - SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE NOT REQUIRED - CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE NOT NECESSARY - PROPERTIES OF JUDGMENT-DEBTOR EXEMPTED IN EARLIER EXECUTION CASE - CAN BE PROCEEDED AGAINST AFRESH - LIABILITY OF HEIRS OF JUDGMENT-DEBTOR - EXTENT OF LIABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The decree-holder died during the execution proceedings. His heirs continued the execution without obtaining a succession certificate. The judgment-debtor's properties were attached in the execution case. The judgment-debtor's heirs objected to the attachment, claiming that they were not liable to satisfy the decree. The trial court upheld their objection, but the appellate court reversed the trial court's order.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the decree-holder's heirs were entitled to continue the execution proceedings without obtaining a succession certificate. It also held that a certified copy of the judgment and decree was not necessary to show that the judgment-debtor was liable to pay the decree. The High Court further held that the properties of the judgment-debtor could be proceeded against afresh, even though they had been exempted in an earlier execution case. Finally, the High Court held that the judgment-debtor's heirs were liable to satisfy the decree to the extent of the assets they had received from the judgment-debtor.

Issues: 1. Whether the decree-holder's heirs were entitled to continue the execution proceedings without obtaining a succession certificate. 2. Whether a certified copy of the judgment and decree was necessary to show that the judgment-debtor was liable to pay the decree. 3. Whether the properties of the judgment-debtor could be proceeded against afresh, even though they had been exempted in an earlier execution case. 4. Whether the judgment-debtor's heirs were liable to satisfy the decree to the extent of the assets they had received from the judgment-debtor.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act does not apply to execution proceedings commenced by the original decree-holder. 2. A certified copy of the judgment and decree is not necessary to show that the judgment-debtor is liable to pay the decree, if the judgment-debtor has not disputed his liability. 3. The properties of the judgment-debtor can be proceeded against afresh, even though they had been exempted in an earlier execution case. 4. The judgment-debtor's heirs are liable to satisfy the decree to the extent of the assets they had received from the judgment-debtor.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the judgment-debtor's heirs' application.

Judgment

U.N.Sinha, J.

1. This application has been filed by the persons at whose instance Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1962 had been registered under the following circumstances:

In 1960, an execution case was commenced by the decree-holder, which was numbered as Execution case No. 112 of 1960. The execution was levied as against some properties of one Basudeo Prasad. According to the decree-holder, Basudeo Prasad was a co-judgment debtor of the decree holder with respect to a decree which had been passed against Basudeo Prasad and one Mahendra Lal. It appears that during the course of this execution case, the decree-holder died and thereafter, Basudeo Prasad also died.

The present members of the opposite party continued the execution case as the widow and the sons of the original decree-holder as against the present petitioners, who are the widow and the sons of Basudeo Prasad. These petitioners, there-after, objected to the attachment of the properties, which were attached in the execution case for realisation of the decretal dues. The application was originally filed under Order XXI Rule 58 off the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1962 was registered.

The learned subordinate Judge, who decided this miscellaneous case, in the first instance, held that the application was really under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and there is no dispute about it at this stage. It appears that two contentions were raised before the learned Subordinate Judge, namely, whether the properties of the heirs of Basudeo Prasad are liable to be proceeded against in execution of the decree, or, whether they should be released. On the materials on record, the learned Subordinate Judge held that Basudeo Prasad was also a co-judgment-debtor, although so far as the loan upon which the suit bad been instituted was concerned, Basudeo Prasad was a surety for the principal debtor.

On the second question agitated before the learned Subordinate Judge, he was of the view that the decree-holders must exhaust other remedies against the property of Mahendra Lal, the principal debtor, before they could fall back on the properties of Basudeo Prasad, especially when by order dated the 6th April, 1957, in an earlier execution case, the properties of Basudeo Prasad had been struck off from the list of the properties proceeded against. Thus, the miscellaneous case succeeded and the opposite party carried an appeal to the court of appeal below. The teamed Additional District Judge has allowed the appeal and has reversed the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. According to the court of appeal below, Basudeo Prasad was a co-judgment-debtor and the decreeholders were entitled to proceed against the properties of Basudeo Prasad, as the latter equally liable with Mahendra Lal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised four points in this Court, which I shall deal with seriatim. The first contention urged by the learned counsel is that the decree-holder having died during the proceeding in execution, his heirs can be permitted to continue with the execution only if they have taken out a succession certificate under the provision of Sec.214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act. From the two judgments of the two courts below, it does not appear that this question had been agitated in the courts below, and upon a decision of this Court, in the case of Raghubir Singh V/s. Raj Rajeshwar Pd. Singh, AIR 1957 Pat 435, it appears that this contention is without any merit. The present execution case having been commended by the original decree-holder, Sec.214 (1) (b) has no application at all.

The second contention raised by learned counsel is to the effect that before the heirs of the original decreeholder can be permitted to execute the decree, a certified copy of the judgment and decree should have been filed in this case, to show that Basudeo Prasad was a co-judgment-debtor, and to show under what condition Basudeo Prasad had been made



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top