Skip to content


Faqir Chand and anr. Vs. Sant Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All157a
AppellantFaqir Chand and anr.
RespondentSant Lal
Excerpt:
- - sheo persad singh (1880) 5 cal 148, where it was clearly held that the attachment of an undivided interest of a coparcener created a charge on his interest which was not extinguished by the death of that coparcener......from an order passed in execution. faqir chand is the father and mt. srimati the widow of one amir chand against whom the respondent had obtained a money-decree in execution of which he attached his undivided share in the family house to the extent of one-half. after the attachment but before the sale amir chand died and the decree-holder wanted to proceed with the execution against the attached property in the hands of the father and the widow. objections were raised on behalf of the father which have bean disallowed, hence this appeal.2. two points have been urged before us, the first is that the effect of the attachment ceased as soon as amir chand died inasmuch as the property was undivided joint family property which has survived to the father. the second point is that the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors from an order passed in execution. Faqir Chand is the father and Mt. Srimati the widow of one Amir Chand against whom the respondent had obtained a money-decree in execution of which he attached his undivided share in the family house to the extent of one-half. After the attachment but before the sale Amir Chand died and the decree-holder wanted to proceed with the execution against the attached property in the hands of the father and the widow. Objections were raised on behalf of the father which have bean disallowed, hence this appeal.

2. Two points have been urged before us, The first is that the effect of the attachment ceased as soon as Amir Chand died inasmuch as the property was undivided joint family property which has survived to the father. The second point is that the father is in no case the legal representative of the deceased Amir Chand.

3. The first contention is contrary to what was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh (1880) 5 Cal 148, where it was clearly held that the attachment of an undivided interest of a coparcener created a charge on his interest which was not extinguished by the death of that coparcener. That case has bean followed by this Court in the case of Lachmi Narain v. Kunji Lal (1894) 16 All 449.

4. As to the second point we think that, that too, has no force. If by attachment the decree-holder had created a charge on the interest of the deceased Amir Chand the equity of redemption must vest in the father who is a surviving member. If for any reason the attachment were to cease the property would vest in the father. Under these circumstances Faqir Chand the father was the legal representative Against whom execution ought to proceed. By way of precaution the learned Subordinate Judge has also impleaded Mt. Srimati the widow in case she wanted to file objections. This she need not do. Under these circumstances the order passed cannot be said to be in any way wrong. The appeal is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //