Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Babu Ram vs Achhru (Deceased) Through Lrs Smt. ... on 1 October, 2018

Author: Sureshwar Thakur

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH              SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 172 of 2017 Decided on : 26.9.2018 .

                                                                                                                                
    Babu Ram                                                          .....Petitioner. 
                                    Versus





Achhru (deceased) through LRs Smt. Kanku Devi & others               ....Respondents. 

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes. 
For the petitioner: Mr. B.R. Verma, Advocate.   
For the respondents: Mr.   Inderjeet   Singh   Narwal, Advocate, for the respondents. 
                                                                                                                                               
Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)   A   conclusive,   and,   binding   decree   of   injunction, stands, pronounced, against, the defendant one Achhru Ram, whereunder,   he   was,   declared   to   be,   a,   Karta   of   the   suit property, and, was restrained, to, alienate, create and change the   suit   property,   without,   the   consent   of   the   decree holder/plaintiff.       During   the   pendency   of   the   Execution Petition,   before   the   learned   Executing   Court,   the   afore judgment debtor Achhru Ram, died, and the decree holder, for ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP ...2...
further progressing, the, execution petition, hence instituted an .
application,   for,   begetting   the,   substitution   of   deceased judgment   debtor,   Achhru   Ram,   by   his   LR(s),   and,   the   afore application was dismissed, hence standing aggrieved therefrom, the   decree   holder,   has,   extantly   cast   a   challenge,   upon,   the impugned verdict. 

2. The   relevant   provisions,   as   applicable,   qua   the instant petition, are, borne in Order 21 Rule 32, sub­Section (1) CPC, provisions whereof, are, extracted hereunder:­ "Where   the   party   against   whom   a   decree   for   the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of   conjugal   rights,   or   for   an   injunction,   has   been passed,   has   had   an   opportunity   of   obeying   the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may   be   enforced   in   the   case   of   a   decree   for restitution  of conjugal rights by the attachment of his   property   or,   in   the   case   of   a   decree   for   the specific   performance   of   a   contract,   or   for   an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both."  

3. And   a   reading,   of,   the   afore   extracted   provisions, make imminent upsurgings qua evident wilfull violation of the ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP ...3...

decree   of   injunction,   by   the   litigant   concerned,   rather   hence .

rendering   him   amenable   to   face,   the,   statutory   ill­ consequences,   of,   his   being   ordered   to   be   detained   in   civil prison or his property being ordered to be attached.  

3. The   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   has submitted   with   much   vigor   (i)   that   the   afore   manner   of execution   of,   a,   decree   of   injunction,   upon,   its   evident disobedience,   during   his   lifetime,   by   the   errant   litigant,   and, vis­a­vis,   him   rather   being   forbidden   upon   his   demise   to   be amenable for execution, upon, his LRs nor hence any order for substitution, of,  the errant deceased litigant, by his LRs being renderable, and, for strengthening the afore submission, (ii) he further contends that the afore statutory manner of execution, of,   a   decree   of   injunction,   against,   the   errant   litigant,   rather being   personally   executable   against   the   errant   litigant,   and, upon   his   demise,   it   being   not   hence   executable   personally against any of his legal representatives, nor against the assets' of   the   deceased   litigant,   assets   whereof,   upon   the   latters' demise, hence, fall into their hands.

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP

...4...

5. However,   the   aforesaid   contention   is   frail,   and, .

cannot be accepted by this Court, as it emanates  from a gross misreading,   of,   the   hereat   rendered   decree   of   injunction.     A deep reading of the hereat rendered decree of injunction rather unveils   (i)     qua   the   deceased   judgment   debtor   one     Achhru Ram,   being   declared   a   Karta   of,   the,   joint   hindu   ancestral coparcenary   property,   and,   further   also   his   thereunder   being barred to alienate, it, without the consent of the decree holder, petitioner herein.   The counsel appearing for the respondents before   this   Court,   does   not   hold   any   contest,   vis­a­vis,   the deceased   judgment   debtor,   one   Achhru   Ram,   during   his lifetime, despite holding an opportunity to obey, the, decree of injunction, his rather, wilfully disobeying it, (ii) now, given the afore deceased errant litigant being declared a Karta, and, with the   suit   property   being,   a,   joint   hindu   ancestral   coparcenary property,   and,   with   the   plaintiff­decree   holder,   prima   facie, hence   holding   an   indefeasible     interest   therein,   as   a coparcenar,   (iii)   further,   when   upon   demise   of   deceased judgment   debtor,   Achhru   Ram,   the   ancestral   coparcenary property  prima   facie,   continues   to   retain   its   above   character, ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP ...5...

and, prima facie hence, it stands, transmitted into the hands of .

his legal representative, latter whereof, upon the demise of, the, errant   litigant,   prima   facie   inherit   the   latters'   share,   in   the residual   ancestral   coparcenary   property,   (iv)       consequently, given   the   afore   imminent   evidence,   existing   on   record, thereupon when the LRs, of, the deceased errant litigant, prima facie inherited the share of the latter, in the residual, of, the ancestral   coparcenary   property.   (v)   thereupon,   they,   are required   to   be   impleaded   in   his   place,   in   the   array,   of, judgment debtors, (vi) importantly when hence the manner of execution   of,   a,   decree   of   injunction,   upon,   its   evident disobedience,   by   their   predecessor­in­interest,   though,   would not   render   them   to   face   the   ill­consequences   of   theirs   being ordered, to be detained in civil prison, whereas, rather would render   the   residual   of   the   ancestral   coparcenary   property, hence being,  ordered to be attached, (vii) also hence constrains this   Court   to   allow   the   instant   petition,   rather,     for   enabling efficacious   execution   of   the   apt   decree,   and,   in   the   afore manner.   

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP

...6...

6. In   aftermath,   the   impugned   order,   suffers,   from   a .

gross   perversity   and   absurdity.     Accordingly,   the   petition   is allowed,   and,   the   impugned   order   is   quashed   and   set   aside.

The  learned  Executing  Court  is  directed  to  permit the  decree holder to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased judgment debtor   late   Achhru   Ram,   in,   the   pending   execution   petition, and,   proceed   further   in   accordance   with   law.   All   pending applications, also stand disposed of.   


     

    26th September, 2018                      (Sureshwar Thakur),
              (kck)                                   Judge. 








                                             ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP