C.R. No. 6440 of 2005 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6440 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 7, 2009
Narinder Kumar
.. Petitioner
v.
Shiv Kumar (deceased) through LRs
and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned
Executing Court, whereby the objections filed by respondent No.2 under Order 21
Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were accepted.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit against Shiv
Kumar, which was compromised by him in Lok Adalat for a total sum of Rs.
61,000/- on 30.11.1996. As the amount was not paid, execution was filed on
5.1.1999. Attachment of a joint account of Shiv Kumar (deceased) along with his
wife was sought for recovery of the decretal amount. However, considering the
objections filed by Shakuntla Devi widow of Shiv Kumar, the execution petition
was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mere fact that
the amount was lying in a joint account of Shiv Kumar along with his wife
Shakuntla would mean that the amount belonged to Shiv Kumar, against whom the
decree had been passed. The learned court had gone wrong in accepting the
objections filed by Shakuntla Devi claiming that the amount belonged to her. She
was merely a household lady with no independent source of income on the basis of
which she could legitimately claim that amount belonged to her.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted
that no doubt, it was an amount lying in a joint account of Shiv Kumar (deceased)
with Shakuntla Devi. However, the same was sale proceeds of a house owned by
Shakuntla Devi, which was sold on 1.9.1998 and the consideration money received
C.R. No. 6440 of 2005 [2]
on account thereof to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/- was deposited in the account
which was opened on 6.9.1998. The property sold being in the name of Shakuntla
Devi individually, the petitioner cannot settle his claim on the amount lying in the
bank merely on account of the fact that the account was joint with her husband.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit
in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the admitted facts
on record, Rs. 1,10,000/- was deposited by Shakuntla Devi in the bank in a newly
opened account on 6.9.1998. The amount was claimed to be sale proceeds of a
house sold by her vide registered sale deed dated 1.9.1998. There was no other
amount lying in the bank. Shiv Kumar-Judgment Debtor had already expired.
There is no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there
is nothing on record to prove that from where Shakuntla Devi had purchased the
property, which was allegedly sold and as to whether the same in fact stood in her
name or was joint in names with her husband. The respondents have been able to
prove on record that the amount which was deposited in the bank on 6.9.1998 was
from the sale proceeds of the house, which was sold by Shakuntla Devi. Initial
onus was discharged. No material has been produced on record by the petitioner to
rebut the evidence led by the respondents in this regard to claim that the house sold
was in fact not registered in the name of Shakuntla Devi. The fact that the
petitioner could not have executed the decree passed against Shiv Kumar by
getting the property owned by Shakuntla Devi attached and sold is not disputed.
Once that is so, there was no reason for even attaching the sale proceeds thereof
for satisfaction of the decree.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the
present revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
7.1.2009
mk