JAYAGOPAL CHETTY Vs. MANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Attur in REP No. 28 of 2008 in O.S. No. 153 of 2000, this civil revision petition is focused.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) PLACING reliance on the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would develop his argument to the effect that it is the duty of the executing court to see that as per Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the legal heir who stepped into the shoes of the deceased, actually inherited the property of the deceased, once the revision petitioner herein submitted before the court that even though he happened to be the son, he has not inherited the property of the Judgment Debtor Jayagopal Chetty, during his life time itself and that too, even before the institution of the suit by the decree holder settled the property in favour of Naresh and that therefore the court should not have simply ordered for sale.