KACHARABHAI LEHRABHAI Vs. KACHARABHAI VADILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vadilal Maganlal, the father of the respondent, obtained a decree against the appellant and brought a darkhast in execution on November 11, 1929. During the pendency of the darkhast he died on June 12, 1930. His heir and legal representative, the respondent Kacharabhai Vadilal, applied to be brought on the record to continue the darkhast proceedings. The judgment-debtor, appellant, opposed, but was unsuccessful. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the heir to proceed with the darkhast. The judgment-debtor appeals.

(2.) The appellant relies on Order XXI, Rule 16, and the decision of the Madras High Court in Palaniappa Chettiar V/s. Valliammai Achi (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 1

(3.) The respondent invites our attention to a recent decision in Sailendra Nath Ghose V/s. Surendra Nath De (1929) 34 C.W.N. 437 and the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Jang Bahadur V/s. Bank of Upper India, Ld. s.c. 30 Bom, L.R. 1373 Cases such as Ganpaya V/s. Krishnappa , Raghunath v, Gangaram , and Bhagwan Das V/s. Jugul Kishore (1920) I.L.R. 42 All. 570 deal with the case of a deceased judgment-debtor, which stands on a different footing. If, as in the last case, for instance, the property belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached and he dies subsequent to the attachment, execution might proceed. But when, as here, the decree-holder dies, we prefer the reasoning and the conclusion of the Madras High Court in Palaniappa Chettiar V/s. Valliammai Achi.