Sankar vs Radha (Died)
2023 Latest Caselaw 9294 Mad

                                                                             C.R.P.(NPD)No.622 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 31.07.2023

                                                         CORAM :

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                                C.R.P.(NPD)No.622 of 2021
                                                 and CMP.No.5350 of 2021

                     Sankar                                                       .. Petitioner
                                                             vs

                     1.Radha (Died)
                     2.Viruthambal                                           .. Respondents
                     (R2 impleaded vide order of this Court dated 31.07.2023
                       made in CMP.Nos.5543, 5546 & 5548 of 2023 in
                       CRP(NPD)No.622 of 2021)

                                  Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
                     against the fair and decretal orders dated 29.08.2019 passed in
                     E.A.No.77 of 2011 in E.P.No.63 of 2009 in O.S.No.199 of 2003 on the
                     file of the Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam.

                                       For Petitioner    : Mrs.R.Meenal

                                       For Respondents: : Mrs.B.N.Sivagamasundari

                                                         ORDER

O.S.No.199 of 2003 was a suit for maintenance and for

consequential relief. The said suit was presented by the respondent

judgment debtor against her husband Balaraman. The suit was decreed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD)No.622 of 2021

on 24.08.2005. When the decree was put into execution, one Sankar

claimed to be a legatee under a “Will” written by Balaraman. He stated

that the decree is inexecutable because Balaraman is dead and the

property now stands vested in him by virtue of the Will dated

09.10.2007. Apart from that, he would argue that since the judgment

debtor is dead, there is no liability to pay maintenance.

2.I heard Mrs.R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mrs.B.N.Sivagamasundari, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents. I have carefully perused the records.

3.The decree is one for maintenance. The settled position of law is

that the persons, who inherited the property or to whom the property

vests with by a “Will” written by a judgment debtor are duty bound to

satisfy the decree. There is no gain in saying that on the death of the

judgment debtor, the decree becomes invalid. The decree holder having

got maintenance against the judgment debtor, she is entitled to proceed as

against the property. That is exactly what has been done in this case.

4.The argument that due to the execution of the “Will”, the decree

has become inexecutable is erroneous. At best, the person who claims to

be a legatee steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor and is answerable

to the decree to the extent to which the property has come into his hands. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD)No.622 of 2021

There is no dispute that the property, which is the subject matter of

charge created on 24.08.2005, has come into the hands of the civil

revision petitioner. He is liable for the payment of the maintenance

amount till it is fully satisfied.

5.On the second point that since the judgment creditor is no more,

the decree has become inexecutable is a very unique proposition. I am not

willing to agree with the said proposition.

6.The plaintiff decree holder will be entitled to maintenance and

her legal representatives are entitled to execute the decree till the date of

her death. That amount having been crystallised, the civil revision

petitioner will be answerable from the estate of the deceased Balaraman

to the estate of the deceased Radha.

7.With this clarification, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                                              31.07.2023
                     Index:Yes/No                                                                (2/2)
                     Speaking order/Non-speaking order
                     Neutral Citation:Yes/No
                     vs

                     To
                     The Principal Sub Court,
                     Vridhachalam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                                           C.R.P.(NPD)No.622 of 2021



                                  V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

                                                                 vs




                                    C.R.P.(NPD)No.622 of 2021
                                     and CMP.No.5350 of 2021




                                                      31.07.2023




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis