GOLOK CHANDRA KHATANIAR Vs. GARGANARAYAN BARMAN AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal arising out of an execution case. The Appellant in this Court happens to be a person who claimed to be a representative of the judgment-debtor and wanted to be impleaded as a party to the execution case, as such. A preliminary mortgage decree was passed in favour of the decree-holder Respondent on 3-5-38. As the mortgage dues were not paid within the period of grace, eventually a final decree followed on 17-11-38. It appears that the decree in question had been purchased by one Garganarayan, who is the present decree-holder executing the decree.

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to me that to a large extent the Appellant himself was to blame in the matter, because he did not claim to be added as a party to the execution case on the ground that he was a successor-in-interest or representative of the judgment-debtor by virtue of his purchase of the mortgaged property, but wanted to be added as a party to the suit and to redeem the mortgage. Under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the word 'representatives' was not limited merely to the legal representatives, but included persons on whom the interest of the judgment-debtor devolved by assignment, transfer or otherwise.

(3.) The appeal, therefore, in my opinion, must be allowed, and the order of the Court below must be set aside. I direct that the Appellant be added as a party to the execution case, and the execution should proceed after considering such of his objections as may be validly urged. The Appellant will have the right to pay up the mortgage decree in satisfaction of the decree-holders's claim.