Skip to content


immudipattam Janakirama Kumara Kondama Subramania Narhimuthu Bommayya Naicken Ayyan Avergal Vs. C. Subramania Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in83Ind.Cas.165
Appellantimmudipattam Janakirama Kumara Kondama Subramania Narhimuthu Bommayya Naicken Ayyan Avergal
RespondentC. Subramania Aiyar
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), sections 47, 50 - madras impartible estates act (ii of 1904), section 4--debt incurred by zemindar--decree--execution against income accrued due after death of judgment-debtor--procedure--execution proceedings--suit, separate, whether necessary. - .....itself be converted into such a suit and that the respondent (judgment-creditor) should be allowed to go on with his execution application amended into a suit. we think that this cannot properly be done, for what he is applying for in the present application is to attach certain moneys as being the assets of the late zemindar, and after attachment of such moneys to pay them over to him in satisfaction of his decree debt. in a suit such a prayer as that of attachment of, moneys, cannot be included. he will have, after obtaining a declaration if he can that these moneys are liable for his decree debt, to put in a fresh application for attachment and payment of those moneys in satisfaction of his decree debt.5. the order of the lower court must, therefore, be reversed and that of the.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the question arises in the execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 714 of 1911 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Dindigul. The plaintiff obtained a decree against the then zemindar of Ayakudi for a certain sum of moneys That zemindar died in 1917 and this is an application made by the plaintiff for attachment of certain sums of money payable to the present zemindar under a lease which was granted by the previous zemindar who was the judgment-debtor, but for a period subsequent to the death of that zemindar. The decree is sought to be executed against the present zemindar as the legal representative of the late zemindar against the assets in his hands. The present zemindar objected to the attachment and contended that this money could not be treated as assets in his hands as it was his own money and further more that the matter could not begone into in execution. The Munsif gave effect to the plea that the matter could not be gone into in execution and referred the plaintiff to a suit, but, on appeal to the Appellate Court, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the matter should be decided in execution proceedings and has remanded the application to the lower Court for disposal on the merits. The appeal to us is by the present zemindar who contends that the order of the lower Appellate Court is not right.

2. It is clear to us that the money that has been attempted to be attached in this case cannot be considered to be the assets of the late zemindar at all, for it is money that has accrued due, under the lease of the zemindari, after the late zemindar's death and after the estate had passed into the hands of the present zemindar by right of survivorship. 'It is: true that, if the plaintiff (judgment-creditor) is able to show that his debt was for a sum of money borrowed for the benefit of the estate under Section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act, his debt would be a debt binding on the impartible estate and he would be entitled to enforce his debt as against the estate in the hands of the present, zemindar; but, by proving that the debt was borrowed for the benefit of the zemindari the zemindari does not become the assets of the late zemindar in the hands of the present zemindar. The only thing that results is whether the plaintiff will be able to enforce his debt against the impartible estate in the hands of the present zemindar.

3. We think that such a question could not be decided in execution proceedings. The view of the Subordinate Judge that the question is one of determining what are the assets of the late zemindar is not correct. The question is one of enforcing a new liability that would be created against the estate in the present zemindar's hands by proof that the debt was borrowed for the benefit of the estate. The plaintiff's proper remedy is to bring a suit and after obtaining a declaration that his debt is binding on the impartible estate and upon the income that has accrued due from the impartible estate in the hands of the present zemindar, to apply then in execuion of his decree to have it executed against such property.

4. An application has been made to us that the execution petition should itself be converted into such a suit and that the respondent (judgment-creditor) should be allowed to go on with his execution application amended into a suit. We think that this cannot properly be done, for what he is applying for in the present application is to attach certain moneys as being the assets of the late zemindar, and after attachment of such moneys to pay them over to him in satisfaction of his decree debt. In a suit such a prayer as that of attachment of, moneys, cannot be included. He will have, after obtaining a declaration if he can that these moneys are liable for his decree debt, to put in a fresh application for attachment and payment of those moneys in satisfaction of his decree debt.

5. The order of the lower Court must, therefore, be reversed and that of the District Munsif must be restored. The appellant will have his costs of this appeal but we do not interfere with the order as to the rest of the costs.


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