Pritha Mandelia v. Punjab National Bank and 4 Ors.

Appeal Dy. No. 53/2019 Date: 23.11.2023

Pritha Mandelia Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Present: Shri Aditya Singh, counsel for the appellant, Shri Awadhesh Kumar Pal, counsel for the respondent-Bank,

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal below is absolutely illegal and is unsustainable in view of the fact that the respondent No. 4, who is mother of the appellant, had taken credit facility from the respondents No. 1 and 2- Banks. The respondent No. 4 during her life time had executed a Will, by which she bequeathed all her movable and immovable properties in favour of her son-respondent No. 4-B.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the aforesaid Will, no part of the estate of the deceased respondent No. 4 has devolved upon the appellant. Further, no movable/immovable properties/any interest whatsoever has been inherited by the appellant from the deceased respondent No. 4. It is also submitted that as per law, legal heirs/representatives are liable for the debts of their predecessor only to the extent of share of the property inherited by them from their predecessor. As such no liability/debt arising out from the impugned proceedings can be fastened against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that Order XXII Rule 5 deals with the determination of question as to legal representative. It is also argued that Order XXII Rule 10 for such purpose is appropriate.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the observation of the Tribunal below that this question will be