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

1986 Supreme(Ker) 272

BALAKRISHNA MENON
MATHAI – Appellant
Versus
JOY – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The question for decision in this C. R. P. is whether a transferee executing court is competent to permit the legal representatives of the deceased decree holder to continue the execution proceedings without obtaining an order under Order XXI R.16 C. P. C. from the court which passed the decree.

2. The decree in the present case was passed by the Munsiff's Court, Punalur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4136/- and interest thereon from the judgment-debtors. The decree was transferred for execution to the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor. The decree holder died on 14-4-1985 after instituting execution proceedings in the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor. The children of the decree holder filed two applications in the execution Court E. A. 57/85 and E. A. 152/85 for bringing them on record as the legal representatives of the deceased decree holder and to permit them to continue the execution proceedings. The transferee execution court by order dated 21st December, 1985 allowed these petitions and permitted the legal representatives to continue the execution proceedings. It is against this, the judgment debtors have come up in revision.

3. S.42 of the C. P. C. enacts that a court execut








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top