C.R. No. 6440 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6440 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: January 7, 2009 Narinder Kumar .. Petitioner v. Shiv Kumar (deceased) through LRs and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby the objections filed by respondent No.2 under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were accepted. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit against Shiv Kumar, which was compromised by him in Lok Adalat for a total sum of Rs. 61,000/- on 30.11.1996. As the amount was not paid, execution was filed on 5.1.1999. Attachment of a joint account of Shiv Kumar (deceased) along with his wife was sought for recovery of the decretal amount. However, considering the objections filed by Shakuntla Devi widow of Shiv Kumar, the execution petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mere fact that the amount was lying in a joint account of Shiv Kumar along with his wife Shakuntla would mean that the amount belonged to Shiv Kumar, against whom the decree had been passed. The learned court had gone wrong in accepting the objections filed by Shakuntla Devi claiming that the amount belonged to her. She was merely a household lady with no independent source of income on the basis of which she could legitimately claim that amount belonged to her. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that no doubt, it was an amount lying in a joint account of Shiv Kumar (deceased) with Shakuntla Devi. However, the same was sale proceeds of a house owned by Shakuntla Devi, which was sold on 1.9.1998 and the consideration money received C.R. No. 6440 of 2005 [2] on account thereof to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/- was deposited in the account which was opened on 6.9.1998. The property sold being in the name of Shakuntla Devi individually, the petitioner cannot settle his claim on the amount lying in the bank merely on account of the fact that the account was joint with her husband. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the admitted facts on record, Rs. 1,10,000/- was deposited by Shakuntla Devi in the bank in a newly opened account on 6.9.1998. The amount was claimed to be sale proceeds of a house sold by her vide registered sale deed dated 1.9.1998. There was no other amount lying in the bank. Shiv Kumar-Judgment Debtor had already expired. There is no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is nothing on record to prove that from where Shakuntla Devi had purchased the property, which was allegedly sold and as to whether the same in fact stood in her name or was joint in names with her husband. The respondents have been able to prove on record that the amount which was deposited in the bank on 6.9.1998 was from the sale proceeds of the house, which was sold by Shakuntla Devi. Initial onus was discharged. No material has been produced on record by the petitioner to rebut the evidence led by the respondents in this regard to claim that the house sold was in fact not registered in the name of Shakuntla Devi. The fact that the petitioner could not have executed the decree passed against Shiv Kumar by getting the property owned by Shakuntla Devi attached and sold is not disputed. Once that is so, there was no reason for even attaching the sale proceeds thereof for satisfaction of the decree. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 7.1.2009 mk