RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the son of Late.Kaliappan. It is found that the first respondent / plaintiff has levied the suit, in O.S.No.254 of 2004, against the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased Kaliappan, for recovery of money. It is found that the said suit had ended in a decree in favour of the first respondent / plaintiff empowering him to recover the suit amount with interest as directed therein from and out of the estate of the deceased Kaliappan in the hands of his legal representatives.

(2.) Putting the above said decree in execution, it is found that the first respondent / plaintiff had levied E.P.No.50 of 2007 against the petitioner, under Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking for a direction to attach the salary of the petitioner for the payment of the decreetal amount. The said execution petition was resisted by the petitioner contending that the employment, which he has secured is provided on the basis of the compassionate ground on the death of his father and therefore, in the wake of said employment, the salary derived by him cannot be characterized as the estate of the deceased Kaliappan and in such view of the matter, the decree having been passed for recovery of money only as against the estate of the deceased Kaliappan in the hands of his legal representatives, the present execution petition levied by the plaintiff seeking to attach the salary of the petitioner, which is his personal income for the services rendered by him in the hospital, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the attachment of the same and hence, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, holding that inasmuch as the debt had been incurred by the deceased Kaliappan, accordingly, further holding that the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased Kaliappan, has a duty under law to discharge the said debt on the doctrine of pious obligation and thus, entertained the execution petition and ordered the attachment of his salary. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.