Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Parbati Devi & Ors vs Mahadeo Prasad Tibrewalla on 31 July, 1979

K.Zacharia Zacharia vs Jolly Cherian on 26 June, 2009

2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and the submissions made at the time of hearing with reference to the materials produced in the petition and perusing the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge, I requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to enlighten me whether the dispute presented before the execution court as to who is the legal heir of a deceased decree holder, that too, in a decree passed in a suit for partition allotting specific shares to that decree holder in which the other judgment debtor could not have any interest or raise any challenge, is a question falling for determination before the execution court under Section 47 of the CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on WPC.11702/09 4 Parbati Debi and others v. Mahadeo Prasad Tibrewalla (AIR 1979 SC 1915) and Gopaldas Mohata v. Fulchand (1997 (1) KLT Short note 40), submitted that if a question as to who is the legal representative of the decree holder is raised before the executing court, that court is bound in law to resolve that dispute under Section 47 of the CPC.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - S S Satheesachandran - Full Document

Reliance Commercial Finace Ltd vs Sameer Seth And Anr on 1 August, 2018

In the case of Parbati Debi and others (supra), the question which came into consideration before the Supreme Court was that, in case there was no stipulation regarding the implication of non-adhering to the terms of the settlement or if terms of the settlement were silent as to what was to happen on the failure of the judgment-debtors to satisfy the decree in the manner agreed upon. It is not necessary in such a situation for the Court to say that it would be legitimate to assume that the parties intended that the decree holder would be entitled to release of dues by execution of the original mortgage decree. There is no quarrel to the proposition sought to be urged by the counsel for the respondents. However, in the present case pursuant to the settlement, the respondents had paid a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- to the appellant herein on 13.09.2016. The balance payment was of Rs.1,5,00,000/- was also received and accepted by the decree holder during the pendency of EFA (OS) 12/2018, 13/2018 & 14/2018, Page 9 of 10 an application which had been filed by the appellant seeking revival of the execution petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document
1