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

2017 Supreme(HP) 1345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Parvesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 81 of 2014
Decided On : 28-06-2017

Advocates Appeared:
Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1; Nemo, for the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3

The timing of alienation of property and the liability of donees for the debts of the donor under Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Headnote:

Execution Petition - Legal Representatives - Section 2(11) of CPC, Section 128 of Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the definition of legal representatives under Section 2(11) of the CPC and the provisions of Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act. It highlighted the importance of the timing of alienation of property and the liability of donees for the debts of the donor.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought execution of a decree against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The legal representatives objected to the execution, claiming that they did not inherit the estate of the deceased and therefore should not be liable for the decree.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the objections of the legal representatives and ordered coercive steps to be initiated against them. It held that the donee of a gift deed executed prior to the demise of the donor could be held liable for the debts of the donor under Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issues: The issues revolved around the inheritance of the deceased's estate by the legal representatives and the liability of the donee under a gift deed executed prior to the demise of the donor.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of legal representatives and the provisions of Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act to determine the liability of the legal representatives and the donee under the gift deed.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and all pending applications, upholding the liability of the legal representatives and the donee under the gift deed for the execution of the decree.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)—The decree holder/plaintiff had sought execution of a decree recorded upon sole defendant Jai Narain Kaushal by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 22-N/1 of 1995 comprising therein decretal amount of Rs. 4,36,479/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 8.11.95 to 8.11.2008, ''by its'' instituting an Execution Petition bearing No. 12-N/10 of 2009, before the learned Executing Court, yet given occurrence of demise of Jai Narain Kaushal in the interregnum ''since'' the recording of the judgment and decree upon the aforesaid sole defendant ''till'' the institution of the execution petition No. 12-N/10 of 2009, thereupon in execution petition No. 12-N/10 of 2009, the legal representatives of deceased sole defendant Jai Narain Kaushal stood arrayed as co-judgment debtors.

2. All the objectors/judgment debtor(s) resisted the execution petition by theirs rearing objections thereto. The apposite objections reared by co-objections/JD No. 2 and 3 stood anvilled upon the factum of their predecessor-in-interest ''not'' at the time of his demise leaving behind any part of his estate for theirs hence inheriting it nor thereupon on his demise, theirs hence stepping into his shoes besides theirs also not representing his estate, thereupon, they concerted to exculpate their liability with respect to liquidation by them of the decretal amount.

3. The resistance reared to the execution petition by one Parvesh Kumar, the grand son of the sole defendant, against whom a money decree stood pronounced, stood anvilled upon the factum of his ''during'' the pendency of Civil Suit No. 22-N/1 of 1995 acquiring from the deceased contesting sole defendant, the ''latter''s estate'' under a gift deed executed by the aforesaid in his favour, hence, the money decree being not realisable, ''there against/therefrom'', given its alienation vis-a-vis him. The apposite gift deed is borne on Ex. RB. The learned executing Court on appreciating the evidence adduced upon the issues, framed upon the apposite pleadings of the parties there before, proceeded to dismiss all the apposite objections, obviously hence it ordered for coercive steps being initiated against the estate of one Parvesh Kumar given his receiving ''it'' under a gift deed executed in his favour by the sole contesting deceased defendant, namely, one Jai Narain, his grand father. The aforesaid Parvesh Kumar is aggrieved by the orders pronounced by the learned Executing Court, whereby, it dismissed his objections, hence, is driven to institute the instant revision petition before this Court.

4. The objecting espousals reared by co-objectors No. 2 and 3 to'' the execution of the decree against their respective estates ''comprised'' in the factum of theirs on demise of deceased defendant Jai Narain, not inheriting his estate, hence, the decree put to execution being unexecutable against their respective estates ''is'' embedded in evidentiary strata given its attaining corroboration from the testification of RW-1, significantly, when he in his cross-examination acquiesces to the suggestion put to him, that on demise of Jai Narain Kaushal, both co-objectors No. 2 and 3 not'' inheriting his estate, given the aforesaid deceased not leaving behind any portion of his estate for ''its'' being inherited by each of them. The aforesaid admission existing in the cross-examination of RW-1 ''acquires solemnity'' given no evidence for eroding its worth standing adduced by the decree holder, consequently, it is to be concluded that both the judgment debtors/co-objectors No. 2 and 3 not'' on demise of defendant Jai Narain Kaushal inheriting his estate, whereupon, the decree put to execution against them was unexecutable against their respective estate(s).

5. Be that as it may, one Pravesh Kumar, co-objector No. 1 resisted the executability vis-a-vis his estate of the apposite money decree(s) comprised in sum(s) of Rs. 14,64,476.75/-{Rs.4,36,479/-(decreed amount) +

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 Back to top