Execution of decree against legal representatives

Arun Singh; Atishay Aggarwal; Anil K. Dixit

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS3.8925

Authors

Arun Singh
arunrana403@gmail.com
B.B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) 10th Sem, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun-248007, Uttarakhand, India
Atishay Aggarwal B.B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) 10th Sem, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun-248007, Uttarakhand, India
Anil K. Dixit Professor of Law, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun-248007, Uttarakhand, India

Keywords:

execution, decree, deceased, legal representative, section 50

Abstract

A common occurrence in litigation is the death of one of the parties while the case is still ongoing. The right to be heard by all parties is one of the principles of natural justice (audi alterum partem). However, if one of the parties dies, the Court will be unable to issue a judgement since a dead man cannot be ordered or decreed against. As a result, although the proceedings will not be halted, the Court will be unable to take any enforcement action until the legal representation has been registered in the record. This is addressed under Sections 50 and 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These provisions may be used by the decree holder to not only carry out the decree, but also to collect money from the decedent's estate. However, the extent of these two sections is still a matter of debate. By reference to numerous court opinions, this article aims to distinguish between Sections 50 and 52 and examine the conditions in which they apply.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Retrieved from https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-of-the-enforcement-of-the-decree-against-legal-representatives/

BS Ashok S/o Late B. Subbarama Setty v. The Investment Trust of India Ltd , (2010) 2 KCCR 822 (Karnataka High Court December 18, 2009).

Cooperative Society v. Kartiyayani Unni, (2011) 2 KLJ 209 (Kerala High Court 2011).

D. Krishna Sachi v. Y. Vijay Lakshmamma, AIR 1988 AP 60 (Andhra High Court July 22, 1986).

Dayanandan v. Venugopal Naidu, AIR 1964 Mad 78 (Madras High Court July 23, 1963).

Dayaram v. Shyam Sundari, AIR 1965 SC 4049. (Supreme Court of India September 8, 1964).

Dinamoni Chaudhurani v. Elahadut Khan, (1904) 8 Cal WN 843 (Calcutta High Court July 25, 1904).

Dixit, A. K. (2006). Press Laws & Media Ethics. Reference Press.

Elissa v. A. Doss, AIR 1992 Mad 159 (Madras High Court January 7, 1991).

Retrieved from https://www.aequivic.in/post/enforcement-of-the-decree-against-deceased

Retrieved from http://cja.gov.in/data/Executions.pdf

Mubarak Begam v. Sushil Kumar, AIR 1957 Raj 154 (Rajasthan High Court November 30, 1956).

Mulla, D., Prasad, B., & Mohan, M. (2015). Mulla, the Code of Civil Procedure. Lexisnexis, May.

N.K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N. C. Mohammad Ismail, AIR 1966 SC 792 (Supreme Court of India September 23, 1965).

Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, AIR 1953 SC 33 (Supreme Court of India October 27, 1952).

Ram Murti Devi v. Ralla Ram Tulsi Ram, AIR 1987 HP 14 (Himachal Pradesh High Court August 19, 1985).

Sharma, K. (2014). Law of execution of decrees & orders. Kamal Publishers.

Smt. Shivamma v. Arogyamma , (2011) 3 KCCR 2458 (Karnataka High Court June 17, 2011).

Someswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam v. Dasam Suryanarayana, AIR 2004 AP 223 (Andhra High Court November 10, 2003).

Tarangini Debi v. Raj Krishna Mondal, 115 Ind Cas 520 (Calcutta High Court August 15, 1927).

V. Uthirapathi v. Ashrab Ali, AIR 1998 SC 1168 (Karnataka High Court December 9, 1997).

Rinartha, K., & Suryasa, W. (2017). Comparative study for better result on query suggestion of article searching with MySQL pattern matching and Jaccard similarity. In 2017 5th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

Rinartha, K., Suryasa, W., & Kartika, L. G. S. (2018). Comparative Analysis of String Similarity on Dynamic Query Suggestions. In 2018 Electrical Power, Electronics, Communications, Controls and Informatics Seminar (EECCIS) (pp. 399-404). IEEE.