GANESHMAL Vs. ANAND KANWAR
LAWS(RAJ)-1968-2-3
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 29,1968

GANESHMAL Appellant
VERSUS
ANAND KANWAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAHOMED YUSUF V. ABDUR RAHIM BEPARI [REFERRED TO]
BALMUKAND V. GOBIND RAM [REFERRED TO]
TEJRAJ RAJMAL MARWADI V. RAMPYARI [REFERRED TO]
SHAH RAMJI LADHA V. HOTI HARISANJI VERSALJI [REFERRED TO]
THOMA CHACKO V. KOSHI VARGHESE [REFERRED TO]
P.L. VASAPPA V. SIDDAMA [REFERRED TO]
KAVIRAJ BASUDEVANAND VS. RAGHUBIR SARAN RASTOGI [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR NARAIN SINGH VS. RAJ RAJESHWARI PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LAL KUMARI DEVI VS. FULMATI KUER [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RUKAIYABIBI WD O SAMSUDDIN JIVAJI RAJA VS. VOHRA ABDULBHAI ISUFALLY [LAWS(GJH)-1975-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURTI DEVI VS. RALLA RAM TULSI RAM [LAWS(HPH)-1985-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
AKULA RANGAPPA VS. NARAYANA SWAMY [LAWS(APH)-1986-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
GUMMALA BALA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY VS. D BALA SWAMY [LAWS(APH)-2005-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
APARTI PANDA VS. GOVINDA SAHU [LAWS(ORI)-1983-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA PRASAD JAMUNA PRASAD VS. GHASIRAM ALIAS RAJU [LAWS(MPH)-1996-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
SANKARAN NAIR RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR VS. MADHAVI AMMA EASWARI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1979-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
V SOMASUNDARAM VS. S THIRUPURASUNDARI [LAWS(MAD)-1988-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ALEEM VS. MAQSOOD ALAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1988-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
MALLAPPA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [LAWS(KAR)-1999-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR VS. MAHESH MRIPAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
GULZARI LAL VS. FIRM LAKHMI CHAND-VISHWA NATH SIRSA [LAWS(P&H)-1983-1-104] [REFERRED]
GYARSILAL VS. MURLI [LAWS(RAJ)-1986-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
NANDLAL VS. MAHAVIR KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1974-3-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is a special appeal fay the judgment-debtor Ganeshmal against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 26th July, 1961 dismissing his execution first appeal in limine.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: one Raj Narain Mathur obtained a money decree for Rs. 37,086/15/-from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, on 29-4-60 against the present appellant Ganesh-mal. He took out execution of the said decree, but before it could be satisfied, he expired on 16-12-60. Thereafter an application under Section 146 read with Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of civil Procedure was filed on 7-1-61 by his widow Smt. Anand Kanwar, his seven sons and two daughters and another similar application was filed by his remaining three daughters on 18/2/ 61 and therein it was prayed that they be substituted as the legal representatives of the deceased and they also be allowed to proceed with the execution petition filed by Rajnarain. These applications were opposed by the judgment-debtor on three grounds, but those objections were repelled by the executing court and it was ordered that the names of the twelve applicants be substituted in place of the deceased and that the execution proceedings would continue. Aggrieved by this order dated 8-4-61, the judgment-debtor filed an appeal, but it was summarily dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court, as pointed out above, and hence this special appeal.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the appellant has urged only one ground before us. It is contended by him that what was being executed by Raj Narain was admittedly a money decree and that his legal representatives could not proceed with the execution application filed by him after his demise, without obtaining a succession certificate because Section 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 laid down a specific bar to that effect. In support of his argument, he has referred to tejraj Rajmal Marwadi v. Rampyari, AIR 1938 Nag 528; Shah Ramji tadha v. Hoti harisanii Versalji, AIR 1955 Kutch 6; Thoma Chacko v. Koshi Varghese, AIR 1956 tra-Co. 183 and P. L. Vasappa v. Siddama, AIR 1966 Mys 198.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.