Civil Revision No.6378 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6378 of 2007 Date of Decision:24.02.2009 Neha ....petitioner Versus Smt.Mahindero Devi & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Manu Goyal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, in Execution No.55 of 2007, whereby objections filed by the petitioner, have been dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, an Award was passed on 27.04.1998 in Claim Petition No.74 of 1996 titled as “Mahindero Devi etc.versus Rajesh Kumar etc.” As per this Award claimants were held entitled to an amount of Rs.4,14,000/- as compensation. Negligence in causing the accident was held in the ratio of 50:50 and decree holders were held entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,07,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of their claim, till realization against Rajesh Kumar(predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner). Rajesh Kumar, JD died on 13.10.1998. He owned land to the extent of 1/6 share out of total land measuring 6K-7M comprised in Khewat No. 47, Khatoni No. 72, rect. No. 33, Khasra No. 7/2, rect. no. 4, khasra no. 5/2 situated at village Bhawani Khera, Teshil Thanesar, District Civil Revision No.6378 of 2007 2 Kurukshetra. Vide mutation No.598 land which was previously owned by Rajesh Kumar was transferred in favour of the petitioner and Smt.Shashi respondent No.6 to the extent of equal shares i.e.1/12 share, each. The said mutation was sanctioned on 28.11.2002. It is relevant to mention that execution in this case was filed on 25.11.1999 by the decree holder. Vide order dated 25.09.2004 warrants of attachment were ordered to be issued to attach 1/6th share in the land measuring 6K-7M which was in the name of Rajesh Kumar. However, the sale warrants could not be issued for one reason or the other. On 25.07.2007, the objections were moved by the petitioner and vide order dated 31.07.2007 sale of share of Neha(i.e.to the extent of 1/12 share) was ordered to be stayed by the Tribunal and the sale of remaining share which was in the name of Shashi, respondent No.6 was not stayed. Thereafter, a clever device was adopted by the Objector/petitioner by filing an appeal before Collector, Kurukshetra challenging the mutation that the 1/12 share in the name of Shashi has been wrongly transferred. Vide order dated 11.09.2007, the Collector, Kurukshetra set aside the order dated 09.08.2003 passed by Assistant Collector, IInd Grand and mutation of total land i.e.1/6 share of Rajesh Kumar in the total land measuring 6K-7M was ordered to be mutated in favour of petitioner. The decree holder moved an application before the Executing Court for attachment of the said land in the name of the petitioner. The objections were filed. The Executing court has dismissed the objections vide impugned order. Challenging the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner is a minor. After death of her father, she became owner of 1/12 share of total land measuring 6K-7M comprising in Khewat No. 47, Khatoni No. 72, rect. No. 33, Khasra No. 7/2, rect. no. 4, khasra no. 5/2 situated at village Bhawani Khera, Teshil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Mutation No. 598 was sanctioned to this Civil Revision No.6378 of 2007 3 effect and 1/12 share of her mother also came to her share and she became owner of 1/6 share out of total land measuring 6K-7M and since she is minor the said land cannot be sold in execution and the warrants be recalled and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that they are entitled to execute the Award as the land was ordered to be attached and sold in execution of the Award passed against Rajesh Kumar and the share of Shashi has been transferred in favour of petitioner only to avoid the execution, therefore the present petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find no merit in this petition. From the facts, it transpires that when application was moved on 24.07.2007 for stay of proceedings of execution by the petitioner, it was stated that she was granted the stay of sale to the extent of her share only i.e.1/12 share and the remaining sale was not ordered to be stayed. After the passing of the order of the stay of the share of the minor on 31.07.2007 an appeal was filed in September 2007 against the order dated 09.08.2003 passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Thanesar and the land in the name of Smt.Shashi was also got mutated in the name of petitioner Neha who is a minor. Thus, this was nothing but purely a tactics of the Judgment Debtor to frustrate the execution. In fact, this amounts to play fraud upon the Court. As per the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay in 1999 (1) C.C. Case 475 titled as Eknath Nana Shinde Vs. Shankarappa Chanbasappa Shindgi & Anr. And 1998 (2) C.C. Cases 228 titled as Madhukar Sagun Karpe Vs. Institution or Public Assistance, relied upon by learned counsel for the decree holders, if the J.D. has died and execution proceedings are against legal representatives of the deceased J.D., the legal representatives are liable for the debts of their predecessor to the extent of the estate acquired Civil Revision No.6378 of 2007 4 by the legal representatives from their predecessor. In present case also, and award in the sum of Rs. 4,14,000/- along with interest has already been passed against Rajesh Kumar who had died later on. The property owned by him was inherited by his widow and minor daughter. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid authorities, the money decree against Rajesh would be executed out of the property left by Rajesh Kumar J.D. since deceased. With the aforesaid observations, I find no merit in this petition and the same is disposed of, accordingly. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 24.02.2009 neenu