REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MALLAPPA Appellant

V/S

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

COLQUHOUN V. BROOKS [REFERRED TO]
P.L. BASAPPA V. SIDDAMMA [REFERRED TO]
T. RAMAIAH V. K.S. ROOPRAJ [REFERRED TO]
TEJRAJ RAJMAL V. RAMPYARI [REFERRED TO]
LOKAMMA V. NANJAPPA GOWDA [REFERRED TO]
THIMMEGOWDA V. THIMMEGOWDA [REFERRED TO]
SHAH RAMJI LADHA V. HOTI HARISINGHJI VERSALJI [REFERRED TO]
KESORAM INDUSTRIES AND COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX CENTRAL CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
P S L RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR VS. O R M P R M RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
DAYA SINGH DEAD VS. DHAN KAUR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX KANPUR VS. CHANDER SEN [REFERRED TO]
DINA NATH VS. BALKRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
SHRINATH KHANDELWAL VS. BISHWANATH PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
AKULA MABUKHAN VS. RAJAMMA [REFERRED TO]
KARIYAIAH VS. PUTTAHAYAMMA [REFERRED TO]
THOMA CHACKO VS. KOSHI VARGHESE [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANA PILLAI NARAYANA PILLAI VS. ERAVI NARAYANA PANICKER [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN NAMBOODIRI VS. CHALDEAN SYRIAN BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
RAMANATHA REDDY VS. K V KUPPUSWAMI MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
VALLI VS. MADHAVAN [REFERRED TO]
SANKARAN NAIR RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR VS. MADHAVI AMMA EASWARI AMMA [REFERRED TO]
RESILIKUTTY CHACKO VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR NARAIN SINGH VS. RAJ RAJESHWARI PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GANESHMAL VS. ANAND KANWAR [REFERRED TO]
LAL KUMARI DEVI VS. FULMATI KUER [REFERRED TO]
JADAOBAI W/O. BHIKAMCHAND MARWADI VS. PURAMMAL S/O. RAMRAKH MARWADI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question of law, which is placed before us for determination on a reference made by A.J. Sadashiva, J. and on which the decision of this revision rests, is :

(2.) THE undisputed acts which have lead to filing of the revision by the petitioners may be stated as under : Three petitioners herein are the wife and sons of the first decree-holder Mallappa, since deceased, in Execution No. 359/1992 on the file of the Court below. The execution petition in the said Execution No. 359/1992 was filed by him and two other decree-holders on 5.12.1992 under Order 21 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for recovery of decretal amount shown therein from the respondent L.A.O. ('the L.A.O.' for short) for recovery of the enhanced compensation that was granted for their acquired land in L.A.C. No. 1141/1977 by the court below on receiving a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Admittedly, decree-holders 2 and 3 were already dead and they were represented by their respective legal heirs. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the said decree-holder-1 Mallappa also died on 9.1.1993 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. Therefore, an application i.e., I.A. No. 2, was made on their behalf in Ex. No. 359/1992 before the executing Court for its permission to come on record in place of the deceased decree-holder Mallappa, as his L.Rs. That application was opposed by the judgment debtor L.A.O. on the ground that they are not entitled to come on record without production of succession certificate in respect of the said decree amount. Thereupon, the Court below following the decision of this court in the case of Kariyamma (supra) found the objection of the judgment-debtor acceptable and passed the impugned order with its operative portion in the following terms :

(3.) WE deem it just and proper to recast the said question in the context of the relevant provision in Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act as follows :

Click here to view full judgment.

MALLAPPA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address