Krishnamurthi and Another vs Pattuswamy

Shanmukham, J.—The judgment debtors are the appellants. Their father was the sole defendant in O.S. 258 of 1978 on the file of the Sub

Court. Chidambaram. Pending the suit, he passed away and the present appellants were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased

defendant. Ultimately, the suit came to be decreed against the defendants as against the assets of the deceased in their hands. In execution, the

respondent decree holder brought the entire suit property belonging to the joint family of the appellants for sale, of course after attachment. The

appellants came forward with E.A. 122 of 1984 in that suit, and is claiming that the attachment should be raised on the basis that the attachment in

respect of one half share in the suit property is not proper. Their contention is that the property belonged to the joint family and, therefore, they

themselves are entitled to one half share and that such half share cannot be proceeded against in execution in O.S. 258 of 1978, particularly when

the decree directed the decree-holder to proceed against the assets of the deceased in their hands. This contention did not prevail with the learned

District Judge, though it weighed with the Sub Court, Chidambaram. Consequently, E.A. 122 of 1984 was dismissed. It is this order of the District

Judge, Cuddalore, that is challenged in this appeal. It is not in dispute that the suit property was a joint family asset in the hands of the deceased

judgment debtor, the appellants herein and his other sons. It is true the decree directed that the decree holder should proceed against the assets of

the deceased in the hands of the judgment debtor. The crucial question is what is the asset of the judgment debtor. As regards the Manager of a

joint Hindu family, the assets would mean not only his undivided interest in the property but also his right to alienate the interest of other members in

the coparcenary property. At this juncture, it is relevant to note S.53, C.P.C., which reads as follows :--

For the purposes of Ss. 50 and 52, property in the hands of a son or other descendant which is liable under Hindu Law for the payment of the

debt of a deceased ancestor in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed to be property of the deceased which has come to the

hands of the son or other descendant as his legal representative.

The section makes it clear that not only the individual undivided interest of the Manager judgment debtor, but also the interest of the other members

of the coparcenary property would be liable to answer the decree debt. If so, the order passed by the learned District Judge is not assailable.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed but without costs.