IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the liability of legal heirs is limited to the estate of the deceased, as per the plaintiffs' pleadings, and Section 152 of the CPC pertains to arithmetical or clerical mistakes.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

I.A. 4726/2024 (u/S 152 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 by defendants for modification of Order/Part-Decree dated 04.11.2022)

1. The application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `CPC'), has been filed seeking modification of the Order/part-decree dated 04.11.2022, passed by this Court.

2. It is submitted by the applicants/defendants that the plaintiffs had instituted a Suit for Recovery of Rs.2,77,25,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Seventy Seven Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Only) along with the interest from the defendants in their capacity as legal heirs of Late Shri Ravi Inder Singh.

3. In the part-Decree dated 04.11.2022, it was held as under:

"4. It is the case of the defendants that amount of Rs.95,00,000/-was given as loan by the plaintiffs out of which an amount of Rs.50,95,000/-has been paid to the plaintiffs by Late Ravi Inder Singh. They through Mr. Vashisht concede to the fact that difference between the amounts of Rs.95,00,000/- and Rs.50,95,000/-, i.e., Rs.44,05,000/- need to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

5. Noting the said submission, the Suit to the extent of recovery of Rs. 44,05,000/-is decreed with interest @8% per annum w.e.f. November 16, 2018 till realization. "

4. It is submitted that the statement made by learned counsel for the defendants before the Court on 04.11.2022, was premised on the well-settled principle of law that the liability of the legal heirs is confined to be met from the estate of the deceased Late Sh. Ravi Singh. It was only under this bona fide understanding that learned counsel for the defendants, made the aforesaid statements. Further, in the entire pleadings, the defendants have denied their personal liability to make the payment of the said amount.

5. However, the plaintiff has reneged from their pleadings and has sought the execution of Decree against the defendants in their personal capacity, in the Execution Petition bearing Ex. P. No. 42/2023 and has sought attachment of the personal movable and immovable properties of the defendants. The Execution Court vide Order dated 29.01.2024, has directed the defendants to maintain status quo with regard to the title and possession of their immovable assets. The defendants have suffered grave hardship because of the aforesaid circumstances. The defendants have asserted that under the Hindu law, the liability of the legal heirs, is limited to the estate of the deceased and the personal acquisitions of the legal representatives cannot be attached.

6. It is further submitted that the statement made on behalf of the defendants, by their Counsel in the Court on 04.11.2022, cannot be taken out of the context of the entire pleadings. The defendants can be bound to repay the loan amount only to the extent of the estate of the deceased, as has also been stated by the plaintiffs, in his own plaint. Therefore, it is only a clarification required in the impugned Order and there is no other substantive change sought by the defendants.

7. The Ld. Counsel for defendants has placed reliance upon Pannalal and Ors. v. Naraini and Ors., AIR 1952 SC 170 and Bandaru Srinivassa Rao v. Sreyobhilashi Chit Funds, Wyra & Ors., 2007 SCC Online AP 706 to submit that the provisions codified in Section 50 to 53 CPC 1908 make it clear that the legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased and not in their individual capacity and a son cannot be made personally liable for the debts of his father.

8. Further reliance is also placed upon U.P.S.R. T. C. v. Imtiaz Hussain, (2006)1 SCC 380 to submit that the basis of the provision of Section 152 of the CPC 1908 is based on the well-established principle that the act of the court should prejudice no man and such an unintentional error by the court, must be rectified. In his case, it is only due to an accidental error/omission which could be clarified that the liability has to be satisfied only from the estate