COVENTRY Vs. TULSHI PERSHAD NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents and their father Chhakouri Singh, since deceased, were members of a joint family governed by the Mitakshara system of Hindu Law. Chhakouri Singh, the managing member became indebted to the proprietors of the Keota Indigo Concern, who obtained on the let June 1899 a decree against him for Rs. 7,135 and costs.

(2.) Chhakouri Singh died on the 26 July 1900, and the respondents are the survivors as well as his legal representatives. One of the decree-holders is also dead, and the appellants are now entitled to the benefit of the decree.

(3.) The first application for execution was made on the 10 July, 1901. The appellants prayed for the substitution of the respondents as judgment-debtors in place of their deceased father as his legal heirs in possession and enjoyment of the family properties. They also asked for the levying of execution by attachment and sale of the family properties specified at the foot of the application. Notices under Section 248, Civil Procedure Code, were issued and duly served on the respondents to shew cause why the application for execution should not be granted. No cause was shewn, and on the 10 August 1901, the Court executing the decree directed that the respondents should be substituted in place of the original judgment-debtor. On the 24 August 1901, the Court directed the issue of the process of attachment of the properties specified in the application for execution, and, after the process of attachment had been duly served, made an order for sale on the 15 March 1902. The respondents made no objection throughout these proceedings. On the contrary, they applied on that day for time to enable them to pay up the amount of the decree, and they consented to have the properties sold on the 21 April without a fresh sale proclamation. The decree-holders agreed to this, and the sals was accordingly postponed, and the execution case was struck off.