9911796707
TMI Blog1944 (2) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid was merely her benamidar. She alleged further that the consideration for the hand-note, which was the basis of the suit resulting in the decree under execution, had been paid by her to the judgment-debtor. The appellant, on the other hand, put in an application for being substituted as the legal representative of the decree-holder, as admittedly she is his heir. The contest between the admitted heir of the deceased decree-holder and his sister, who alleges herself to be the real decree-holder, was decided by the executing Court in favour of the respondent. Against the decision of the executing Court, holding that the real decree-holder was the said Raghubansi Devi, the appellant preferred an appeal which was heard by the District J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not come within any one of the three categories. Hence, he has no locus standi in the executing Court to come up and claim that he is entitled to execute the decree in his own name. I feel myself bound by the decisions of this Court, referred to above, which are all Division Bench rulings. Hence, there is no scope for the discussion as to whether the contrary view held by the Madras High Court in the Full Bench decision in Balasubramaniam v. Kothandramaswami A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 688 or similar decisions of the Calcutta High Court on the same point have rightly laid down the law. Mr. Sarjoo Prasad appearing on behalf of the respondent raised a preliminary objection that no second appeal lay in this case in view of the fact that the contest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vada Patrudu A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 903. As the question is of importance and as there is no direct case of the Court on this point, it is desirable [hut this case should be heard by a larger Bench. I myself fee] inclined to accept the correctness of the decision of the Madras case and would hold that the learned Courts below were justified in deciding who should be allowed to execute the decree. 6. As I have already indicated that this Bench is bound by the previous Bench decisions of this Court, unless we take a view different from that expressed in those decisions and refer the case to a larger Bench, it must be held that the proper person to execute the decree in question is the legal representative of the deceased decree-holder, and not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smuch as the decree itself may become barred by limitation while the controversy between two contending parties remains undecided. The simple answer to this objection is that a person who takes the hazardous course of throwing a veil on the real state of affairs must be prepared to take some risks attending such a transaction, as did actually happen in Mohammad Anas v. Bhupendra Prasad A.I.R. 1938 Pat. 457. It may also be that where the real decree-holder chooses to keep behind the scene, and takes a decree m the benami of another person, he may be confronted with the situation that the ostensible decree-holder has assigned the decree to a third party who is wholly innocent of the real state of affairs. The position in such a hypothetical c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
