ROBERT HERCULES SKINNER Vs. LTJAMES RRSKINNER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application for restitution of property made under Section 144, Civil P.C., by Lieutenant James B.R. Skinner, executor and legal representative of the estate of Mrs. Alice Georgina Skinner against Robert Hercules Skinner, Colonel S.E. Skinner administrator to the estate of Richard Boss Skinner and one T.I. Skinner. The litigation which has given rise to the present appeal before us can briefly be stated as follows : One Richard Ross Skinner owned extensive properties in the Punjab as well as in the United Provinces. He died intestate in the year 1913 and the properties left by him devolved upon his brother, George C. E. Skinner, and his sister, Alice Georgina Skinner, in equal shares. At the time of his death, Richard Ross Skinner was indebted to the Delhi and London Bank Ltd. Delhi and administration of his estate was granted to one Mr. Angelo, the Manager of the aforesaid Bank. On 18 June 1918, while the estate was still under administration, George C.E. Skinner executed a deed which purported to be a deed of sale in favour of Robert Hercules Skinner, under which the properties now in suit were transferred to Robert Hercules Skinner. It would seem that George G.E. Skinner claimed to be the sole heir of Richard Ross Skinner and fully entitled to make transfers of the entire estate of the deceased whose estate at the time of the deed was under administration. We find that in the deed executed, one paragraph runs as follows: (7) That the said vendor declares that he is the sole heir of the said property : but should other heirs be established...by order of any Court, the vendor is not responsible.

(2.) In December 1919 George C.E. Skinner died intestate and on 11 February 1921, Robert Hercules Skinner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 18 June 1918, and also for possession of the properties in suit. The suit was resisted by the defendants in that case. One of the defendants was Mrs. Alice Georgina Skinner, who had claimed that she was entitled to one-half share in the estate of Richard Ross Skinner. One Thomas Skinner was made administrator-ad-litem of the estate of George C. E. Skinner, deceased. Major Stanley E. Skinner was also substituted in place of Mr. Angelo as the administrator of the estate of Richard Ross Skinner. Mrs. Alice Skinner died during the pendency of the case and the name of Lieutenant James B. B. Skinner was substituted in her place as her executor. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Against that decree an appeal was preferred to the High Court. By its judgment dated 22 January, 1926, this Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the first Court and passed a decree in favour of Robert Hercules Skinner in the following terms: 1. The plaintiff to deposit in Court for payment to James R.R. Skinner the following amounts namely : (a) Rupees 10,000 with interest at Rs. 6 per cent, per annum from 19 August 1921 till the date of deposit, (b) Rupees 39,367-11-0 with interest at Rs. 6 per cent, per annum from 20 October 1924 till the date of the deposit. 2. The above amounts to be deposited in by the plaintiff in one lump sum within three (3) months from the date on which the administration of the estate of Richard Ross Skinner by the administrator Major Stanley B. Skinner is completed by the acceptance by the High Court of the final administration account to be filed by the said administratoRule 3. That upon such deposit being made by the plaintiff in the manner and within the time above provided, Major Stanley E. Skinner, the administrator-ad-litem of the estate of G.C.E. Skinner, shall join in executing in favour of the plaintiff a conveyance of the interest of G.C.E. Skinner in the estate of Richard Ross Skinner as it stands after the administration has been completed. 4. That the parties to the suit and to this appeal do bear their own costs in both the Courts. 5. That if the plaintiff fails to deposit in Court the sum above mentioned within the time limited above, this suit and appeal shall stand dismissed with costs to the defendants in both Courts including in this Court-fees on the higher scale.

(3.) This judgment of the High Court is printed at pp. 289 to 291. Against the decision of the High Court, an appeal was preferred to His Majesty in Council. The judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council See A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 269 dated 16 July 1929 is printed at pp. 333 to 337. The appeal was allowed and the decree of the High Court was set aside and the order passed by the first Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit was upheld. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before His Majesty in Council, Colonel Stanley E. Skinner who was in possession of the estate of Richard Ross Skinner as administrator handed over one half-share in it to Robert Hercules Skinner and one-half share to Mrs. Alice Georgina Skinner who was his own wife. He purported to have done this under the directions given by the High Court in its decree to which a reference has already been made. After the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council dated 16th July 1929, Lieutenant James Skinner made an application to this Court under the provisions of Rule 15, Order 45, Civil P.C., on 20 February 1930. This rule relates to obtaining execution of any order of His Majesty in Council. Such an application has to be made to the High Court. The application made by Lieutenant James Skinner is at pp. 355 and 356. The prayer made in this application was: It is therefore prayed that Rs. 7,989-2-10 the aforesaid costs may be taxed arid the decree may be transmitted to the Subordinate Judge, Meerut, for execution of costs and for enforcement of the order of His Majesty in Privy Council by restitution, etc.