Madras High Court
Ramasami Ayyangar vs Bagirathi Ammal on 19 January, 1883
Equivalent citations: (1883)ILR 6MAD180
JUDGMENT
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.
1. We entertain, no doubt, that the representative of the deceased judgment-debtor ought to have been brought in this case, and that the further process of sale, which had to take place before the execution could be fully had, could not legally issue without some person upon the record representing the deceased against whom the decree might be executed.
2. The sale must be set aside and the attachment of the property resumed. It will be for the judgment-creditor to take steps to bring in the representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor and proceed regularly with the execution of his decree.
3. The petitioner will have the costs of this application.