A claimant must provide adequate documentation to establish their status as a legal representative in execution proceedings; failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition.

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 06.02.2024 passed in E.A.No.63 of 2023 in E.P.No.151 of 2018 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present civil revision petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a petition filed by a proposed party claiming to be the legal representative (LR) of Judgment Debtor (J.Dr) No. 6, who allegedly died on 05.09.2022. However, the trial court noted that under Section 50 of the CPC, it is the responsibility of the Decree Holder to bring the LRs of the J.Dr on record. The proposed party failed to provide documentation proving their relationship with J.Dr.No.6 and merely stated that he should be brought on record. Since the Execution Petition (EP) was only for delivery of possession, and the suit property was already registered in the name of the Decree Holder by the Court, the petition was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri K. Jamali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the lower court is challenged as illegal, contrary to law, facts, evidence, and probabilities and that the executing Court overlooked that the petitioner specifically stated J.Dr.Nos.1-5 were brought on record, and Smt. Kausar Sultana/J.Dr.No.6 died on 05.09.2022, making the petitioner, as her brother, entitled to succeed to her estate. He further submitted that the trial Court also failed to consider that respondent Nos.2 to 5, brought on record as legal representatives of Mohd. Muneer, did not dispute the status of the petitioner as their brother. He contended that granting delivery of possession to the decree holder would perpetuate the fraud committed by concealing the death of J.Dr.No.1 after the decree, resulting in the trial Court executing a sale deed on behalf of a deceased person. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit was filed against J.Dr.No.1 and decreed on 14.03.2016, for registration of the sale deed upon receiving the balance consideration. He further submitted that the decree holder deposited the amount and filed an Execution Petition (EP) for execution and registration of the sale deed. Since J.Dr.No.1 failed to execute the registered sale deed, the EP was allowed, and the trial court executed the registered sale deed on behalf of JDr.No.1 on 09.03.2018. The decree holder then filed the EP for possession, making the presence of the petitioner is unnecessary for the disposal of the EP.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner failed to provide evidence or documentation proving his status as the legal representative of J.Dr.No.5. Despite the opportunity to do so, the petitioner did not submit any records or testimony to establish their connection to J.Dr.No.5. Furthermore, it is to be noted that there was no record of the other J.Drs notifying about the death of J.Dr.No.5 or taking steps to bring him as LR on record. This lack of documentation and notification suggests that the claim of the petitioner may not be legitimate. Additionally, this Court pointed out that the suit property in question is already registered in the name of the decree holder by the Court below in E.P.No.91 of 2017. This prior registration limits the scope for objections in the present E.P, making it even more crucial for the petitioner to provide strong evidence of their claim. Therefore, the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition due to its lack of merit.

7. In view thereof, this Civil Revision Petition is dismi