M. NARAYANAN Vs. G. SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent decree -holder in the Court below is the petitioner herein. The above revision petition arises in execution proceedings. In O.S. No. 495 of 1966, the petitioner herein obtained a decree and in execution attached the joint family property belonging to the judgment -debtors. After attachment was effected, the sons, one of them being a minor have filed the present application claiming that they are entitled to their two -third share of the property that the decree is not binding on them and that the one -third share of the father alone could be brought to sale in execution and that the decree is a personal decree against the father. The suit was for recovery of an amount from the first defendant -company and the second defendant as director of the first defendant -company. That suit was decreed, and the ancestral properties of the second defendant were brought to sale and the properties were attached and it is at that stage the present application by the sons is filed to raise the attachment.

(2.) THE 1st respondent decree -holder filed a counter contending that the sons have no locus standi to file the petition. The lower Court upheld the claim of the sons and ordered the attachment of the two -thirds share of the sons to be raised, with the result that the decree -holder was directed to proceed only against the one -third share of the father. Against the said decision, the present revision is filed.

(3.) I am, therefore, of opinion that the order of the lower Court raising the attachment in respect of the two -third share of the sons should be set aside. The Revision Petition is allowed and there will be no order as to costs.