Skip to content


Panathil Parkum Mankoottil Chathkutty Nair Vs. Kalath Chandu Kutti Nair and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.224
AppellantPanathil Parkum Mankoottil Chathkutty Nair
RespondentKalath Chandu Kutti Nair and ors.
Excerpt:
execution of decree, questions to be decided in - representative of deceased judgment-debtor--suit for declaration--maintainability. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read along with sub-section (12)..........that the property was in possession of the present 1st respondent as the judgment-debtor's representative. the petition for execution was dismissed on the ground that the present 1st respondent was not the legal representative of the appellant's judgment-debtor. then the appellant instituted the present suit and in it he asks for a declaration that the property belonged to his judgment debtor. he alleges that the 1st defendant is the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, but he does not ask for a declaration that the 1st defendant is the legal representative of cheriyakkan nair. it is settled law that any question arising between the judgment-creditor and the legal representative of the judgment-debtor must be decided in execution. if the plaintiff wanted to establish that.....
Judgment:

1. This suit has been rightly dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The appellant holds a decree against one Cheriyakkan Nair; and after his death he sought to execute it against the present 1st respondent alleging that the property was in possession of the present 1st respondent as the judgment-debtor's representative. The petition for execution was dismissed on the ground that the present 1st respondent was not the legal representative of the appellant's judgment-debtor. Then the appellant instituted the present suit and in it he asks for a declaration that the property belonged to his judgment debtor. He alleges that the 1st defendant is the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, but he does not ask for a declaration that the 1st defendant is the legal representative of Cheriyakkan Nair. It is settled law that any question arising between the judgment-creditor and the legal representative of the judgment-debtor must be decided in execution. If the plaintiff wanted to establish that the present 1st respondent is the legal representative of his judgment-debtor, he might maintain the suit. That is not, however, the scope of his suit and we, therefore, think that the suit has been rightly dismissed.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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