The main legal point established in the judgment is that the undivided share of a coparcener in a joint Hindu family property can be attached and sold in execution of a decree.

1. The objector, father of the Judgment Debtor, is aggrieved against the order dated 22-1-2000 whereby his objection against the execution of the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was dismissed.

2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its award dated 23-8-1995 granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- against Jasdev Singh and others. During the course of execution, the decree-holder sought attachment of the land of the judgment-debtor. The said attachment was objected to by the present petitioner on the ground that Jasdev Singh, judgment debtor, has no right or interest in the property attached as he is the owner of the said property.

3. In reply to the objection petition, it was stated by the decree-holder that the land in the hands of Harjit Singh is a joint Hindu family coparcenary property in which Jasdev Singh has 1/2 share. To prove that it is joint Hindu family coparcenary property, the decree-holder attached the revenue record which included jamabandi for the year 1960-61 from the perusal of which it is apparent that the land came into the hands of the objector from his father and, thus, the property in the hands of Harjit Singh is inherited property and, therefore, joint Hindu family property. The petitioner herein has not filed any counter to such averment made in the reply wherein the revenue record was attached.

4. The learned Executing Court on the basis of respective contentions of the parties and keeping in view the revenue record produced by the decree-holder held that the share of the judgment-debtor in coparcenary property can be attached. Reliance was placed upon a Division Bench of Madras High Court reported as Shanmugam Chettiar (minor) through Guardian Shanmugam Chettiar V/s. N. M. Rayaloo Ayyar Nagaswami Ayyar and Co., AIR 1942 Mad 97.

5. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Executing Court has not granted adequate opportunity to the petitioner and objections have been dismissed summarily without framing of any issue and, thus, the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and violate the principles of natural justice. Reliance was also placed upon the provisions of Sec. 60 (1)(m) of the Code of Civil Procedure to contend that the judgment-debtor has only contingent or possible future interest which cannot be attached in terms of the aforesaid provisions. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rajes Kanta Roy V/s. Smt. Shanti Debi, AIR 1957 SC 255.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the revenue record was attached with the reply to prove that the land in the hands of objector is, in fact, a joint Hindu family coparcenary property. The petitioner has not disputed any of the averments of the respondent before the Executing Court nor produced any other revenue record to show nor averred that the revenue record is not correct. Even before this Court, the petitioner has not sought to dispute the correctness of the revenue record so attached with the reply by the respondent before the Executing Court. Therefore, the learned Executing Court was right in law in holding that the judgment-debtor being a coparcener along with the petitioner has 1/2 share in the land which can be attached and sold in execution of the decree passed against the judgment-debtor. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Rajiv Trust, (1998) 3 SCC 723 : (AIR 1998 SC 1754) as well as the judgment of this Court reported as Rocky Tyres V/s. Ajit Jain, 1998 (3) Pun LR 53 : (AIR 1998 Punj and Har 202), to contend that it is the duty of the Executing Court to decide the question raised by the resister or obstructor legally arise between the parties in the adjudication process under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the frivolous objections cannot be allowed to be raised unreasonably or unnecessarily