Subash Chander vs The State of Haryana and Others

G.C. Mital, J.—An award dated 27th May, 1975, for a sum of Rs. 23,898 84 as principal and Rs. 9,516.00 as interest with future interest and execution charges (20 percent) was made against Sin Ram who had died by then and therefore, it was ordered that the recovery may be effected by the sale of the property of the deceased. In proceedings before making award P. 1 the heirs of the deceased were made parties. Thereafter a certificate (P. 2) u/s 63(a) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, was issued for the recovery of the amount under the award against the legal heirs of Siri Ram deceased. In fact, this certificate should have been issued against the estate of the deceased and not against the legal representatives. Since the recovery certificate was issued against the legal heirs, the Assistant Collector II Grade, Jind, on the basis of the writ of demand made u/s 68 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, ordered that the legal representatives of Siri Ram are in arrears to the extent of Rs. 24,822 84 and therefore, the amount be deposited along with the process fee of Rs. 3/- in the Central Bank, Uchana Branch on or before 21st November, 1977. Since the heirs had not inherited any property from Siri Ram deceased, they could not comply with the demand with the result that warrant of arrest was issued against the legal representatives as enumerated in para 10 of the writ petition.

One more fact may be mentioned that some house was attached against which objections ware filed by one Lal Chand to the effect that long before the death of Siri Ram, he had sold that house to him and therefore, it did not belong to Siri Ram and as such no recovery should be made about his dues from his house. These objections were accepted by the Civil Court vide orders copy Annexure P.3 with the writ petition.

On impugned arrest of the heirs of Siri Ram, they filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. Reply has been filed on behalf of the Society also and averments contained in the writ petition have been admitted.

After hearing the counsel for the parties I find that there is merit in the writ petition. The original mistake occurred in preparing the certificate of recovery wherein in it should have been mentioned that the recovery is to be made from the estate of Siri Ram deceased but instead it was mentioned that it has to be made from the legal heirs of the deceased. Due to this fact demand notice Annexure P. 4 was also issued against the petition and since they failed to deposit the amount under the award, warrants of arrest were issued against them. The settled proposition of law is that recovery of an amount due from a deceased person can be made only from his estate in the hands of his heirs and not personally from the heirs. This fact could not be controverted in law by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

Accordingly. I allow this writ petition with costs, counsel''s fee being Rs. 200/- and quash the demand notice Annexure P. 4 as also certificate P. 2 and the proceedings for arrest of the Petitioners with a direction that if the Respondents want to make recovery of dues from Siri Ram deceased, it should only be made from the estate left by him, whether it is in the hands of the Petitioner or anybody else.