RAMESH CHAND Vs. GORA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though this revision petition is admitted for hearing but considering the short question involved, it is being heard finally with the consent of parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order dated 10. 7. 2006 passed by First Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Ashok Nagar rejecting certain objections filed by the petitioner in execution proceedings, the execution proceedings are pending with regard to recovery of certain amount awarded by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ashok nagar in Claim Case No. 12 of 1990. Petitioner Ramesh Chand claims to be the adopted son of Joharilal Jain.

(3.) ONE Parshuram s/o Narottam Prasad, died in motor accident. Death of Parshuram gave cause to filing of a claim case under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said case was registered as Claim Case no. 12 of 1990 and apart from Narottam prasad, his wife Ramkunwar and another son Ramcharan Das were the claimants in the said proceedings. Claim was decreed and vide award dated 31. 3. 1994 a sum of rs. 70,100 have been awarded. After award was passed records indicate that appeal was filed by Narottam Prasad, this appeal being M. A. No. 166 of 1994 was dismissed by this court and award passed was confirmed on 22. 3. 2005 after the order was passed in the appeal. Narottam Prasad filed the present execution proceedings against the original owner of the vehicle Joharilal jain. During the pendency of the execution proceedings both Narottam Prasad and joharilal Jain have expired and their legal heirs were brought on record. Petitioner herein after the death of Joharilal Jain, so also his wife filed an objection under sections 47 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, inter alia, contending that after death of narottam Prasad, his legal heirs are not entitled to maintain the claim. Respondent no. 1, Gora Bai, who is daughter of narottam Prasad is brought on record, inter alia, contending that Gora Bai is not entitled to receive the claim amount now after the death of Narottam Prasad, objection was filed, the objection is dismissed by the impugned order and, therefore, this revision is filed. Mr. Rajeev Jain, counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on section 6 (dd) of the Transfer of Property Act read with section 306 of the Indian Succession act submits that as the award made in favour of Narottam Prasad is in the form of maintenance to Narottam Prasad, the same cannot be transferred and all rights which accrued to Narottam Prasad stand exhausted after his death and the legal heirs and survivors are not entitled to maintain any claim now against the present petitioner accordingly it is argued by Mr. Jain that the award cannot be put to execution now after death of Narottam Prasad against the present petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the execution proceedings.