Babu Ram vs Achhru (deceased) through LRs Smt. Kanku Devi & Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

A conclusive, and, binding decree of injunction, stands, pronounced, against, the defendant one Achhru Ram, whereunder, he was, declared to be, a,

Karta of the suit property, and, was restrained, to, alienate, create and change the suit property, without, the consent of the decree holder/plaintiff.

During the pendency of the Execution Petition, before the learned Executing Court, the afore judgment debtor Achhru Ram, died, and the decree

holder, for further progressing, the, execution petition, hence instituted an application, for, begetting the, substitution of deceased judgment debtor,

Achhru Ram, by his LR(s), and, the afore application was dismissed, hence standing aggrieved therefrom, the decree holder, has, extantly cast a

challenge, upon, the impugned verdict.

The relevant provisions, as applicable, qua the instant petition, are, borne in Order 21 Rule 32, subÂSection (1) CPC, provisions whereof, are,

extracted hereunder:Â​

“Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has

been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for

restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an

injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.â€​

And a reading, of, the afore extracted provisions, make imminent upsurgings qua evident wilfull violation of the decree of injunction, by the litigant

concerned, rather hence rendering him amenable to face, the, statutory ill consequences, of, his being ordered to be detained in civil prison or his

property being ordered to be attached.

The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted with much vigor (i) that the afore manner of execution of, a, decree of injunction, upon, its

evident disobedience, during his lifetime, by the errant litigant, and, visÂaÂvis, him rather being forbidden upon his demise to be amenable for

execution, upon, his LRs nor hence any order for substitution, of, the errant deceased litigant, by his LRs being renderable, and, for strengthening the

afore submission, (ii) he further contends that the afore statutory manner of execution, of, a decree of injunction, against, the errant litigant, rather

being personally executable against the errant litigant, and, upon his demise, it being not hence executable personally against any of his legal

representatives, nor against the assets’ of the deceased litigant, assets whereof, upon the latters’ demise, hence, fall into their hands.

However, the aforesaid contention is frail, and, cannot be accepted by this Court, as it emanates from a gross misreading, of, the hereat rendered

decree of injunction. A deep reading of the hereat rendered decree of injunction rather unveils (i) qua the deceased judgment debtor one Achhru Ram,

being declared a Karta of, the, joint hindu ancestral coparcenary property, and, further also his thereunder being barred to alienate, it, without the

consent of the decree holder, petitioner herein. The counsel appearing for the respondents before this Court, does not hold any contest, visÂaÂvis, the

deceased judgment debtor, one Achhru Ram, during his lifetime, despite holding an opportunity to obey, the, decree of injunction, his rather, wilfully

disobeying it, (ii) now, given the afore deceased errant litigant being declared a Karta, and, with the suit property being, a, joint hindu ancestral

coparcenary property, and, with the plaintiffÂdecree holder, prima facie, hence holding an indefeasible interest therein, as a coparcenar, (iii) further,

when upon demise of deceased judgment debtor, Achhru Ram, the ancestral coparcenary property prima facie, continues to retain its above character,

and, prima facie hence, it stands, transmitted into the hands of his legal representative, latter whereof, upon the demise of, the, errant litigant, prima

facie inherit the latters’ share, in the residual ancestral coparcenary property, (iv) consequently, given the afore imminent evidence, existing on

record, thereupon when the LRs, of, the deceased errant litigant, prima facie inherited the share of the latter, in the residual, of, the ancestral

coparcenary property. (v) thereupon, they, are required to be impleaded in his place, in the array, of, judgment debtors, (vi) importantly when hence

the manner of execution of, a, decree of injunction, upon, its evident disobedience, by their predecessorÂinÂinterest, though, would not render them to

face the illÂconsequences of theirs being ordered, to be detained in civil prison, whereas, rather would render the residual of the ancestral

coparcenary property, hence being, ordered to be attached, (vii) also hence constrains this Court to allow the instant petition, rather, for enabling

efficacious execution of the apt decree, and, in the afore manner.

In aftermath, the impugned order, suffers, from a gross perversity and absurdity. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and, the impugned order is

quashed and set aside. The learned Executing Court is directed to permit the decree holder to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased judgment

debtor late Achhru Ram, in, the pending execution petition, and, proceed further in accordance with law. All pending applications, also stand disposed

of.