KANKOO Vs. PUKHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's second appeal against an appellate order of the District Judge Pali confirming an appeal of the Civil Judge, Sirohi, dismissing her objection under sec. 47 C. P. C.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. THE decree-holders obtained a simple money decree against the assets of Harakchand deceased in the hands of his mother Smt. Kankoo widow of Prithvi Raj and in execution got a house attached. Smt. Kankoo filed an objection that the house was the self acquired property of her husband Prithvi Raj, that she was in possession over it in exercise of her right of maintenance and residence and that it could not be sold in the execution of the decree. THE decree-holders filed a reply contesting the allegations of fact made in the application and asserting that the house was liable to be sold in execution of the decree. THE executing court gave an opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence. Smt. Kankoo examined herself and supported the allegations of fact made in her objection. No evidence was produced on behalf of the decree holders. THE executing court dismissed the objection on the ground that the house was inherited by Harakchand from his father Prithvi Raj and on the death of Harakchand his mother inherited it from her son and consequently the house was liable to sale for payment of the debts of Harakchand. Against this order Smt. Kankoo filed an appeal. THE contention put forward on behalf of the appellant before the learned District Judge was that Smt. Kanko was in possession over the house in exercise of the right of maintenance when the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force and she became full owner of the property under sec. 14 of that Act and consequently it was not liable to be sold in execution of a simple money decree against the assets of Harakchand in her hands. This contention was not accepted by the learned District Judge.