HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3086 of 2017
ORDER:
This revision is filed against the order dated 07.11.2016 in E.A.No.14 of 2016 in EP.No.73 of 1998 in O.P.No.204 of 1987 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. Heard Sri B.Venkatadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. Perused the record.
3. The petitioners filed application in E.A.No.14 of 2016 under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) to record them as legal heirs of the deceased claimant Md.Kaleel, who died on 25.01.2016 in EP.No.73 of 1998.
4. The case of the petitioners is that they are the legal heirs of claimant No.3 in E.P.No.73 of 1998. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority has acquired their lands Ac.4-35 guntas in sy.No.766 along with structures at Shamsabad village and Mandal, 2 Ranga Reddy District. M.A.Basith and Mohd.Khalid filed E.P.No.73 of 1998 in OP.No.204 of 1987 on the file of said Court. On 25.11.2003 the Judgment debtor was directed to deposit the compensation amount together with interest at 15% per annum from 01.01.2003. As the decree-holder Md.Kaleel died on 25.01.2016 leaving behind them i.e. his wife and son i.e. the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein as legal heirs, they filed application to record them as legal heirs of Md.Kaleel in the above E.P. The respondents filed counter stating that they have deposited the compensation amount in EP.No.73 of 1998 along with statement of account. The only ground raised by the respondent is that the petitioners have failed to prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased/claimant No.3 as they have not filed any supporting document or succession certificate and as the huge amount of money is involved, the genuineness of legal heirs has to be verified. On consideration of the material on record, the trial dismissed the application vide impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claimant No.3 Mohd. Khalid died on 25.01.2016 and the present application is filed to bring the petitioners as legal heirs on record in EP.No.73 of 1998 and the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the 3 application stating that full satisfaction was recorded in the Execution Petition. He further submits that the Execution Petition was not terminated and only full satisfaction was recorded. The compensation amount which was deposited by the respondents is still available in the account of EP.No.73 of 1998. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of deceased/ claimant No.3, are rightly entitled for compensation.
6. He relied on the decisions of this Court in Ulli Nagaiah (died) by LRs. V. Chekka Mahalakshmamma1 and Akula Rangappa (died by L.Rs) Akula Satyamaiah v. Narayana Swamy2 and Akula Mabukhan v. Rajamma3.
7. A perusal of the material on record would disclose that originally, EP.No.73 of 1998 was filed by Mohd.Khalid, who died leaving behind petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as legal heirs. The petitioners have filed family member certificate, household card and death certificate of one of the sons of late Mohd.Khalid under Exs.P.1 to 1 2002 Suppl. (2) ALD 848 2 AIR 1988 Andhra Pradesh 314 3 AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 69 (V 50 C 28) 4 P.3 and the said documents categorically proves that they are the legal heirs of late Md.Khalid.
8. The sole question that arises for consideration is; whether the petitioners can be brought on record as legal representatives of deceased Md.Khalid in EP.No.73 of 1998?
9. In Ulli Nagaiah (died) by LRs's case (1 supra), this Court at para No.8 held as under:
8. "In my view, the executing Court failed to maintain distinction between the initiation of the execution proceedings and to continue the execution proceedings. If a decree holder dies before he initiates the execution proceedings such a decree becomes part of the estate of the deceased decree holder. The question as to who is competent to reap the benefits of the decree becomes relevant and such a dispute can be resolved only in the proceedings initiated under the Indian Succession Act. However, in cases where the decree holder has already filed E.P. but died during the pendency of the same, the provisions of the C.P.C. squarely cover the matter and the provisions of the Indian Succession Act have no application in such circumstances."
10. In Akula Rangappa's case (2 supra), this Court held at para No.2 held as under:
" .......The golden rule that runs through the decisions of this Court are thus:
(1) Where a decree-holder himself files an execution application and he dies before executing the decree and recording the full satisfaction the legal representatives are entitled to come on record 5 without obtaining a succession certificate as required under S. 214(1)(b) of the Act.
(2) .........
11. In the impugned order, the trial Court observed that there is no dispute that the petitioners are the legal heirs, but as no execution proceedings are pending and the EP was disposed of in the year 2003 itself and full satisfaction was also recorded, the question of recording them as legal heirs in the EP does not arise. But, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Execution Petition was closed by recording full satisfaction, but the same is not terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed sworn affidavit and the relevant paras of the said affidavit are extracted hereunder:
"On 05.02.2004, the amount payable to DHRs by the L.A.O. was Rs.7,92,352-40 paise but the LAO/JDRs as per Premnath Kappor's case deposited only Rs.1,22,593/-. The Decree holders in 2004 filed a cheque petition for the amount deposited by the LAO/JDR in this EP.No.73/98 and categorically stated in the affidavit that "Being aggrieved by the orders of the Hon'ble Court dated 25.11.2003, the claimants without prejudice to their rights are filing C.R.P. before the Hon'ble High Court".
A memo of part satisfaction was also filed on 10.12.2004 the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to allow the C.R.P.No.3092/2004, observing that the Sunder's case of Supreme Court was applicable to the Decree Holders. On 13.05.2005 the LAO/JDRs, being aggrieved by the order in CRP.No.3092 of 2004, dated 10.12.2004 filed Civil Appeal No.1503 of 2007 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 17.03.2015.6
It is submitted that on 06.04.2015, the Decree Holders filed petition in EP.No.73/1998 before Hon'ble Court of 1st Addl.Senior Civil Judge, RR District, along with judgments of C.R.P.No.3092/2004 and Civil Appeal No.1503/2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 17.03.2015. The Hon'ble 1st ASJ, RR District in EP.No.73 of 1998 posted the matter to 06.07.2015. On that day the Hon'ble Court ordered notice to L.A.O. and posted the matter for 21.07.2015 for counter. After serving of notice the L.A.O. came on record and filed calculation Memo. The L.A.O. also deposited the compensation amount in the Hon'ble Court of 1st ASJ, RR District in EP.No.73/1998.
It is submitted that the DHR No.3/Claimant No.3 Mr.Mohd. Khalid passed away on 25.01.2016. The Legal Heirs of the deceased claimant/DHR No.3 filed Legal Representative Petition. Vide E.A.No.14 of 2016 in EP.No.73/1998 and the same was dismissed by Hon'ble Court of 1st ASJ, RR district on 7.11.2016."
12. The respondent filed counter affidavit along with calculation memo and deposited the compensation amount on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District to the credit of EP.No.73 of 1998. Since the compensation amount, which was entitled by late Md.Khalid, who was DHR.No.3, was deposited, the said EP was only closed on recording full satisfaction, but was not terminated. In view of deposit of the compensation amount in EP.No.73 of 1998 and also having regard to the fact that said was not terminated, the trial Court has committed error in refusing the execution application filed by the petitioners herein under Order XXII Rule 3 of C.P.C. to record them as legal 7 representatives of deceased Mohd.Khalid/claimant No.3 on the ground that full satisfaction was recorded and E.P was disposed of in the year 2003.
13. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order and the said order warrants interference by this Court by invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 07.11.2016, in E.A.No.14 of 2016 is hereby set aside. Consequently, E.A.No.14 of 2016 stands allowed. The Executing Court is directed to record the petitioners as legal representatives of the deceased/claimant No.3 and permit them to continue the execution proceedings in EP.No.73 of 1998. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY 30.11.2022 Nvl