The liability of the legal representative to pay the debt of the deceased judgment debtor and the exemption of the main residential house from attachment and sale in execution of a decree.

M.R. Verma, J.—This petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) has been preferred by the Judgment Debtor objectors (hereafter referred to as the objectors) claiming therein that the land attached and ordered to be sold in Execution Petition No. 46 of 1998 has not been inherited by them from Rameshwar Nath Sharma, the deceased Judgment Debtor, but it was a mortgaged property and has been redeemed by them and that the house situate on the land in dispute is the only residence owned by the applicants, therefore, the orders of sale of the suit property may be recalled and the execution petition against the objectors may be dismissed.

2. The respondent decree holder (hereafter referred to as the DH) contested the petition and averred in its reply that the deceased JD was the owner in possession of the land and buildings attached in execution of the decree in its favour and that the mere redemption of the mortgage by the object in fact does not have any bearing on the liability of the said property to be sold and being the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, the objectors are liable to pay the debt of their father.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

4. The undisputed facts material and relevant for determination of the present controversy are that in Civil Suit No. 58 of 1985, a decree was passed for Rs. 3,14,495.20 in favour of the DH and against Rameshwar Singh and Rameshwar Nath Sharma. Since the decree remained unsatisfied, therefore, Execution Petition 21 of 1989 was filed by the DH for execution of the decree against the Judgment Debtors which was dismissed as partly satisfied vide order dated 15.3.1994. Since the unrealised amount remained unpaid, therefore, the decree holder preferred Execution Petition No. 46 of 1998. In the meanwhile, Rameshwar Nath Sharma, one of the JDs, had died, therefore, in his place, the objectors, being his sons, have been impleaded as Judgment Debtors and the property inherited by them from deceased Rameshwar Nath comprising Khasra Nos. 444 to 448, 451 and 454 situate in Mohal Salan, District Kangra was sought to be attached and stands partly attached. On an application of the DH under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code, a warrant of sale of the said attached property was ordered to be issued vide order dated 24.7.2000. However, the warrant of sale has been received back unexecuted with the report that no bidder turned up to participate in the auction. In the meanwhile, the present objection petition was filed by the objectors.

5. Section 50 of the Code reads as follows:— "50. Legal representative.—(1) Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased. (2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit."

6. It is evident from the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that in the event of death of a judgment debtor before the satisfaction of a decree passed against him, such a decree can be executed against the legal representative of the deceased judgment debtor. However, such legal representative shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which comes to his hands. It is not in dispute that the objectors are the sons of deceased judgment debtor Rameshwar Nath. However, the liability of the property already attached in execution has been assailed on the grounds that this property was inherited by the objectors when it wa