Deceased tenant had two sons, the impleadment of son who was residing in the tenant premises would be sufficient for execution of decree and the other son not residing in the premises is not required to be impleaded.
Citation
CDJ 2016 ch HC 168
Comparative Citations:
2017 AIR(Chhat) 1, 2017 (1) CivCC 807,
2017 AIR(Chhat) 1, 2017 (1) CivCC 807,
Head Note
Following H.C. Pandey (supra), the Supreme Court in
Ashok Chintaman Juker (supra), held that decree passed
in suit for eviction is binding on all members of original
tenant's family who are covered by tenancy and when the
deceased tenant had two sons, the impleadment of son who
was residing in the tenant premises would be sufficient for
execution of decree and the other son not residing in the
premises is not required to be impleaded, there being no
such interest of making him a party to the eviction
proceeding.
In view of the foregoing, the law appears to be settled by the
Supreme Court in umpteen number of decisions that in the
event of death of original tenant, the tenancy devolves on
the legal heirs as joint tenants, therefore, even when only
one of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, who is in
possession of the property, is impleaded in execution
proceedings, the Executing Court should proceed with the
execution instead of directing the decree holder to implead
other legal heirs of the tenant.
16. At this juncture, it is informed by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that one of the other legal heirs
resides in America (USA), therefore, if the trial Court's order
is complied the execution of the decree will be impossible
and, thus, the impugned order, if it is allowed to stand would
occasion failure of justice.
17. This Court is fully convinced with the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since in
view of the settled legal position, it would not be necessary
to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant to be
joined in the execution proceedings, if the impugned order is
allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice,
therefore, it deserves to be quashed by this Court in
exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment delivered on 02-12-2016
WP227 No. 301 of 2016
Anil Gupta V Thamman Singh
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation: AIR 2017 chhatis 1
Ashok Chintaman Juker (supra), held that decree passed
in suit for eviction is binding on all members of original
tenant's family who are covered by tenancy and when the
deceased tenant had two sons, the impleadment of son who
was residing in the tenant premises would be sufficient for
execution of decree and the other son not residing in the
premises is not required to be impleaded, there being no
such interest of making him a party to the eviction
proceeding.
In view of the foregoing, the law appears to be settled by the
Supreme Court in umpteen number of decisions that in the
event of death of original tenant, the tenancy devolves on
the legal heirs as joint tenants, therefore, even when only
one of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, who is in
possession of the property, is impleaded in execution
proceedings, the Executing Court should proceed with the
execution instead of directing the decree holder to implead
other legal heirs of the tenant.
16. At this juncture, it is informed by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that one of the other legal heirs
resides in America (USA), therefore, if the trial Court's order
is complied the execution of the decree will be impossible
and, thus, the impugned order, if it is allowed to stand would
occasion failure of justice.
17. This Court is fully convinced with the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since in
view of the settled legal position, it would not be necessary
to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant to be
joined in the execution proceedings, if the impugned order is
allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice,
therefore, it deserves to be quashed by this Court in
exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment delivered on 02-12-2016
WP227 No. 301 of 2016
Anil Gupta V Thamman Singh
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation: AIR 2017 chhatis 1
Comments
Post a Comment