IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. D. Agarwal, J.
SAHDEO PRASAD VERMA - Appellant
Versus
RAJA RAM - Respondents
Civil Revn. 102 Of 1981
Decided On : 01/19/1984
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 37(B) - JURISDICTION OF COURT TO EXECUTE DECREE - ABATEMENT OF APPEAL - SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - EXECUTION OF DECREE BY CO-TRUSTEE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, trustees of a property, filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the defendants, including tenants and sub-tenants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the decree was reversed, and possession and mesne profits were awarded to the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the appeal, three of the defendants died, and no application was made for the substitution of their legal representatives. The judgment debtors filed objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to execute the decree, the abatement of the appeal, and the validity of the execution application filed by only one of the co-trustees.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court that passed the decree had jurisdiction to execute it, even though it was recreated after being abolished, as it had the same powers and duties as the original court. 2. The appeal abated against the deceased defendants due to the failure to substitute their legal representatives, and the decree became a nullity. 3. The objection that the execution application was filed by only one of the co-trustees was not valid, as under Order XXI, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, any one of the decree-holders could apply for the execution of the whole decree for the benefit of all.
Issues: 1. Whether the court that passed the decree had jurisdiction to execute it after being recreated. 2. Whether the appeal abated against the deceased defendants due to the failure to substitute their legal representatives. 3. Whether the execution application filed by only one of the co-trustees was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 37(b) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that where the court that passed a decree ceases to exist, the court that would have jurisdiction to try the suit if it were instituted at the time of making the application for execution of the decree shall have jurisdiction to execute it. 2. Order XXII, Rule 4(3) and Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code provide that where no application is made for the substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased defendant within the time limit, the suit shall abate against the deceased defendant. 3. Order XXI, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code allows any one of the decree-holders to apply for the execution of the whole decree for the benefit of all the decree-holders.
Final Decision: The revisions filed by the plaintiffs were dismissed, and the objections raised by the judgment debtors under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code were allowed.
( 1 ) THESE connected revisions are directed against a common order passed by the Second additional Civil Judge, Kanpur dated Nov. 13, 1980 under Section 47. Civil P. C.
( 2 ) THE revisions arise from the original suit No. 173 of 1954 instituted in the Court of the subordinate Judge, Kanpur by Sahdeo prasad Verma and others against Raja Ram and others. In brief the allegations of the plaintiffs were that one Hakim Sarju Prasad had created a trust by will dated Oct. 16, 1907 in respect of house No. 75/109 Ranjeet Purwa Kanpur. The plaintiffs were the trustees. Mahadeo Prasad had been managing for some time the trust property on behalf of the trustees. Taking advantage of his position Mahadeo Prasad declared himself as the owner of the house a will was also executed by him on May 13, 1943 in favour of his daughter and the wife. Subsequent to the death of Mahadeo Prasad these persons asserted themselves to be the owners of the house. The tenants in the house were in collusion with them and they denied the rights of the plaintiffs. The daughter of Mahadeo Prasad had also died and the defendant No. 1 is her husband. The defendant No. 2 was the widow of Mahadeo Prasad aforesaid. The defendants nos. 3 to 19 had been living, according to the plaintiffs, as tenants in different portions of the house. They also denied the rights of the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs sought them as well to be ejected besides the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The relief sought was for possession and the recovery of mesne profits. After contest the suit was dismissed by the II Additional Civil Judge, kanpur on Oct. 31, 1957. The plaintiffs preferred First Appeal No. 55 of 1958 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The appeal was allowed on Oct. 20, 1970. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside. The suit was decreed for possession and for recovery of Rs. 3982. 5 annas and mesne profits besides pendente lite and future mesne profits. The decree was put to execution on July 31, 1971 by one of the decree-holders, namely, Sahdeo Prasad verma. Objections were raised by the judgment-debtors under Section 47, Civil P. C. which have been allowed by the II Additional Civil Judge under the impugned order dated Nov. 13, 1980. Aggrieved the decree-holders have preferred these revisions.
( 3 ) LEARNED II Additional Civil Judge has allowed the objections raised for the judgment-debtors on three grounds, namely:-- (i) the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, it has been held, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution of the decree. The finding is that the Court of the then II additional Civil Judge which had passed the decree on Oct. 31. 1957 had been abolished: new court had been created in place thereof and hence the application for execution could not lie in that newly created Court (ii) the respondents Nos. 13, 17 and 18 in First Appeal No. 55 of 1958 (corresponding to defendants Nos. 12, 16 and 17 respectively) died during the pendency of the appeal before the high Court but there was no application made tor the substitution of their legal representatives and on that account the appeal abated and the decree dated Oct. 20, 1970 is to be regarded as a nullity; (iii) the execution application having been filed by only one of the trustees did not He since the co-trustees were not made parties thereto.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has assailed the findings of the Court below on these points. In relation to the ground No. 1 referred to above; it will be recalled that the suit was instituted in the Court of the then Subordinate Judge, Kanpur. The trial could take place in the court of the II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur which dismissed the suit on Oct. 31, 1957. The court, it appears, was abolished some time thereafter. By order of this Court dated 3rd Dec. 1969 sri G. S. Sharma was posted as the II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur. On Dec. 8, 1969 this Court on the administrat
Hhair Ullah v. B. Jai Ram Singh
Sri Chand v. Jagdish Prasad Kishan Chand
V.D. Modi v. Raja Bhai Abdul Rahman
Chhutan Lal v. Punjab National Bank Ltd.
Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey
R. Vishwanathan v. R. Narayanaswamy
N. Jayaram Reddi v. Revenue D.O. and Land Acquisition Officer
Rameshwar Prasad v. Shyam Behari Lal Jagannath
Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh
Rana Harkishandas v. Rana Gulabdas Kalyandas
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.