ANGAVALATHAMMAL Vs. JANKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal that arises in execution of the decree, in O.S. No. 36 of 1909, obtained by one Janaki Ammal against her mother-in-law, one Lakshmi Ammal. As Lakshmi Ammal is now dead, execution is applied for against one Angavalath-ammal, the legal representative and daughter of Lakshmi Ammal. The decree was for possession of certain immoveable properties and for a certain sum of money) over Rs. 10,000. The decree had been executed, during the life-time of Lakshmi Ammal as regards immoveable properties and possession had been taken away from Lakshmi Ammal a year before her death. Lakshmi Ammal died in April 1916. This application is put in, by the Receiver appointed in O.S. No. 40 of 1916, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tanjore, in whom the right to execute the deoree has been vested for the time being, Janaki Ammal, being a party to O.S. No. 40 of 1916. The application prayed for compelling Angavalathammal to pay the decree amount, from the assets of Lakshmi Ammal in her hands, with subsequent interest and costs: Angavalathammal's plea was that Lakshmi Ammal did not have or leave any assets and that no assests of hers came into her hands and that she was not liable to" be proceeded against in execution of the decree.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has passed an order, apparently under Section 50, Sub- clause, 2, of the Civil Procedure code, and this appeal is tiled against the said order, directing Angavalathammal to pay the decree amount herself personally. To justify such an order under the Civil Procedure Code, it must be shown by the person applying that the legal representative had received sufficient property to cover the decree debt and the later must have failed to show that the amount that had come into her hands has been duly disposed Of Section 50(2). Civil Prooedure Code says: Where any suoh property remains in the possession of the judgment-debtor and he fails to satisfy the Courtf that he has duly applied suoh property of the deceased, as is proved to have come into his possession, the deoree may be executed against the judgment-debtor, to the extent of the property in respect of which he has failed so to satisfy the Court, in the same manner as if the decree had been against him personally.

(3.) In this case, three issues were framed by the Subordinate Judge to the following effect: (1) Did Lakshmi have or leave any assets? (2) If so, did they come into the hands of the respondents? (3) To what extent, if at all, is the respondent liable?