Dismissed

Shoorveer Singh v. Hira Singh and Others

Uttarakhand HC1 May 2013CLR/89/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a revision against an order rejecting objections under CPC Section 47 in an execution case. The court held that attaching property inherited by the revisionist without apportionment among co-representatives was legal, ruling legal representatives liable only up to the value of inherited property, regardless of whether inheritance was via will or intestacy.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; interim order dated 14.11.2008 vacated; Stay Vacation Application disposed of.

Shoorveer Singh Vs Hira Singh and Others — Execution and Attachment | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Civil Revision No. 89 of 2012

¶3

with

¶4

Stay Vacation Application No. 3671 of 2012

¶5

Shoorveer Singh S/o Late Shri Naunihal Singh R/o Village Matli, Patti Barsali Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi

¶6

…...... Defendant/Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Heera Singh

¶9

S/o Sti Shankar Singh

¶10

R/o Village Matli, Patti Barsali

¶11

Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi

¶12

.….......Plaintiff/Respondent

¶13

Pratap Singh S/o Late Shri Naunihal Singh

¶14

Bharat Singh S/o Late Shri Naunihal Singh

¶15

Sharat Singh S/o Late Shri Naunihal Singh

¶16

Smt. Kusuma Devi W/o Late Shri Naunihal Singh All R/o Village Matli, Patti Barsali Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi

¶17

….... Defendants /Respondents

¶18

Shri Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Shri N.S.Negi , Advocate, present for the respondent no.1. Shri Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate, present for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.

¶19

¶20

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

(2) This revision is directed against the order dated 21.10.2008, passed by District Judge Uttarkashi, in Execution Case No. 04 of 2004, whereby said court has rejected the objections under section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the present revisionist, and directed the attachment of the Plot No. 1080 and the house standing there on.

¶23

(3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 Hira Sing filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 19 of 2002) for recovery of money against one Naunihal Singh (defendant) which was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004. The First Appeal No. 82 of 2004 was filed by defendant Naunihal Singh (since died) in the High Court, but said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 12.09.2007. Thereafter, execution proceedings started before District Judge Uttarkashi, in the form of Execution Case No. 04 of 2004. Due to the death of original defendant Naunihal Singh, the present revisionist Shoorveer Singh, the respondent no. 2 to 4 who are children of original defendant (since died), and respondent no.5 Kusuma Devi is the

¶24

¶25

widow of the deceased defendant were impleaded as legal representatives of the judgment debtor.

¶26

(4) It is not denied by the revisionist that the revisionist and respondent no.2 to 5 are legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor (defendant Naunihal Singh). What has been pleaded before this Court by the revisionist is that only the property which came in the share of the revisionist, who is only one of the sons of the deceased judgment debtor has been directed to be attached by the executing court leaving the other legal representatives untouched. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that all the legal representatives should have been made liable to pay the decretal amount in the proportion they received the property of the deceased judgment debtor.

¶27

(5) It is settled principle of law that the decree holder cannot be made to chase all the legal representatives to recover the decretal amount. What is required under law is that whosoever has inherited the property (of the deceased judgment debtor), which can satisfy the decree can be made liable to pay the decretal amount in the execution. Off course, a person cannot be made to pay entire decretal sum if it exceeds, the value of the property inherited by

¶28

¶29

such legal representative of the deceased judgment debtor, as the legal representative is not liable to pay any amount more than what he has received in inheritance.

¶30

(6) Shri Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate, on behalf of the revisionist submitted that the land sought to be attached by the decree holder was received by the revisionist through “Will” executed by the original debtor Naunihal Singh, as such, it should be excluded from the rest of the property which was succeeded by all the legal representatives. However, this Court is of the view that it makes no difference whether the legal representatives has received the property of the original judgment debtor entestate or through “Will”.

¶31

(7) Therefore, this court finds no force in this revision which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 14.11.2008, stands vacated. (Stay Vacation Application No. 3671 of 2012 also stands disposed of).

¶32

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

¶33

Dt.01.05.2013 N.P

Shoorveer Singh v. Hira Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoorveer Singh v. Hira Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Preeti Verma Vs Additional Family Court Roorkee and Another

Smt. Mamta Joshi Gahtori Vs Kamal Chandra Gahtori

Smt Pavitra Devi and Others Vs Sudhir Prasad Lakhera and Others

Pal Singh and Ors. Vs Karam Singh Negi and Ors.

Smt. Naseema Begum Vs Chote Ram

Munshi Mewa Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand