Skip to content


Tewari Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt. Lilawati Devi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Execution First Appeal Nos. 2 and 3 of 1967
Judge
Reported in1969WLN286
AppellantTewari Kanhaiya Lal
RespondentSmt. Lilawati Devi
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredShri Prakash Singh v. Madhusudan
Excerpt:
.....possession of them. the collector represents smt. lilawati devi as legal representative of samrath anand nath, deceased. it is not necessary to implead smt. lilawati devi as the legal representative of the judgment-debtor so long as the estate is not released.;the present execution application against the collector is therefore proper and the attached properties can be sold in execution without impleading smt. lilawati devi. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when..........1946 samrat pran nath died leaving a widow smt. lilawati devi, respondent and a minor son samrat anand nath. samrat anand nath died in 1957 and smt. lilawati devi, respondent, is his legal representative.3. samrat gopi nath was a jagirdar. his thikana was known as 'samrath gopinath thikana'. on the death of pran nath, who left a minor son anand nath, the thikana was taken over by the court of wards. when the estate was taken over a notification was made under section 15 of the rajasthan court of wards act, 1951, under section 16 the whole estate of the ward including all his movable and immovable properties will be deemed to be under the superintendence of the court of wards from the date of assumption of superintendence. on the death of anand nath the estate was not released from the.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. These are two connected execution first appeals by the decree-holder against two orders of the Senior Civil Judge No. 2 Jaipur city, upholding the objection of Smt. Lilawati Devi, respondent, that she has become the absolute owner of the attached properties and that these properties cannot be proceeded against in execution without impleading her. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the orders are erroneous.

2. The decree-holder obtained a decree against Samrath Gopinath on 24. 6. 39, and ever since he has been trying to realise the decretal amount. First the decree was executed under the Bachat Rules. In 1945 Samrath Gopinath died leaving a son Samrath Pran Nath. In 1946 Samrat Pran Nath died leaving a widow Smt. Lilawati Devi, respondent and a minor son Samrat Anand Nath. Samrat Anand Nath died in 1957 and Smt. Lilawati Devi, respondent, is his legal representative.

3. Samrat Gopi Nath was a Jagirdar. His Thikana was known as 'Samrath Gopinath Thikana'. On the death of Pran Nath, who left a minor son Anand Nath, the Thikana was taken over by the Court of Wards. When the estate was taken over a notification was made under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Court of Wards Act, 1951, Under Section 16 the whole estate of the ward including all his movable and immovable properties will be deemed to be under the superintendence of the Court of Wards from the date of assumption of superintendence. On the death of Anand Nath the estate was not released from the superintendence of Court of wards. This act is authorised by Section 46 of the Rajasthan Court of Wards Act, 1951. From the date the estate was taken over under the superintendence of the Court of Wards the Collector in-charge of the estate represents the ward in all legal proceedings. On the death of ward in the event of the estate not being released the Collector continues to represent the legal representative of the last ward.

4. In this connection the following decisions may be referred to:

Gopeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1951 Pat. 570.

Shri Prakash Singh v. Madhusudan : AIR1954All164 .

5. It is immaterial whether Shit. Lilawati Devi is in actual Physical possession of some of the properties or whether the Collector is in possession of them. The Collector represents. Smt. Lilawati Devi as legal representative of Samrath Anand Nath, deceased. It is not necessary to implead Smt. Lilawati Devi as the legal representative of the judgment-debtor so long as the estate is not released.

6. The present execution application against the Collector is therefore proper and the attached properties can be sold in execution without impleading Smt. Lilawati Devi.

7. The execution first appeal are accordingly allowed with costs, the orders of the executing court are set aside and the cases are remanded to it for taking proceedings in execution in accordance with law.


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