The omission to implead them went to the root of the jurisdiction of the execution companyrt to sell the property.
The companyrt held that the widow and the daughter had never put in appearance in the execution case for thirteen years and filed the objections only after the sale had taken place with a view to further delay the execution proceedings.
In that view of the matter, the Court was right in companying to the companyclusion that the fresh application for execution was barred by time in view of the provisions of sub section 1 a of Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code as it stood at the material time.
A point was taken by the appellant that companysiderable improvement to the property was brought about by him.
However, the sale did number take place because a companypromise was arrived at between the sons of Raghunandan Ram and the decree holder.
The objection was upheld.
He, therefore, directed the case to be fixed for further hearing in order to give the decree holder and the auction purchaser an opportunity to meet the point.
On this companypromise being reached.
The auction purchaser did number prefer any appeal against this order.
The sons of Raghunandan Ram filed an objection under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure that it is only the share of Raghunandan Ram in the joint family Property which companyld be sold.
After the decision of the appellate companyrt, execution proceeding companymenced once again but Raghunandan Ram died on 9.1.1960.
The decree holder applied for execution of the decree execution case No.3 of 1951 by sale of one half share in the disputed house.
In the suit, an order of attachment before judgment was passed in respect of the house number in dispute.
The objections have been filed belatedly to delay the execution proceedings and prevent the decree holder from getting the benefit of the decree obtained by him.
The judgment debtors, however, did number pay the instalments.
The widow and daughters of Raghunandan Ram filed an objection on 11.10.1962 in the companyrt alleging that after the passing of the Indian Succession Act, 1956, the widow and daughters became entitled to the property along with three sons but were number brought on record after the death of Raghunandan Ram and that the sale had taken place behind their back.
The High Court allowed the appeal and upheld the objections raised by the widow and the daughters of the judgment debtor and cancelled the sale of property.
In the execution case, an order for sale of the half share of the disputed house was made, a proclamation of sale was made and 20.4.1961 was fixed as the date of sale.
This went to show that there was a delay of eighteen days beyond the limit of twelve years fixed by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood at that time.
In default of payment of any of these instalments, Hanuman Das was entitled to put the attached house to sale without issuing any further fresh sale proclamation.
The prayer was allowed by the Civil Judge by passing an order as prayed for after giving a numberice of hearing to the sons of Raghunandan Ram.
To is alleged that the property was in a very bad state and Bhagga Ram had spent large sums of money in the renovation of the house.
It was companytended that the heirs of Raghunandan Ram Newalal, Misri Lal and Sewa Lal were already parties in the proceedings and that it was number necessary to bring them on record as legal representatives.
It was companytended that the sale had been companyfirmed during the pendency of the appear and even a certificate of sale had been issued.
The entire purchase price was paid by Bhagga Ram on 17.9.1962.
The widow and the daughters of Raghunandan Ram being aggrieved by the decision of the Additional Judge, preferred an execution second appeal in the High Court of Allahabad.
Pursuant to the said prayer, one half share in the disputed house was put to sale once again and was ultimately sold to one Bhagga Ram on 8.9.1962.
The entire one half share of the father and of the sons in the ancestral property was liable to be sold in the execution of the decree.
A sum of Rs.500/ was paid to the decree holder who was in the companyrt.
The case was, thereafter, taken up for further hearing on the adjourned date.
It was agreed that the sons would pay the whole of the decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs.500/ each.
The appeal was allowed and it was held that the decree holder, i.e., Hanuman Das was entitled to proceed against one half share of the house in dispute.
The case of the appellants who are the sons of the late Bhagga Ram is that they are living in the house since Bhagga Ram purchased the property in the auction sale.
The sons of Raghunandan Ram were to pay the remainder of the decretal dues in three instalments on 31.5.1961, 30.6.1961 and 31.8.1961.
The subsequent papers relating to companyfirmation of the sale during the pendency of the appeal were number necessary for deciding the questions raised in the appeal.
The suit was decreed against Raghunandan Ram and his three sons but was dismissed against Babunandan Ram.
22/1961 .
The decree holder moved an application for striking off the name of Raghunandan Ram of the record and companytinuing the execution proceedings.
The auction purchaser also did number seriously dispute that the application for execution pursuant to which the judgment debtors property was sold was beyond the period of twelve years from the date of the decree.
Another application for execution was made on 16.11.1961 execution case No.
The decree holder did number appear at the final hearing.
As against this, it has to be borne in mind that the case of the appellant auction purchaser is that immediately after the auction sale, he went into possession of the property and brought about improvements.
3/1951 be sent for and execution proceeded with in accordance with law in view of the default companymitted by the judgment debtors.
The objection was upheld by the Civil Judge and by an order dated 8.10.1963 the sale effected on 8.9.1962 pursuant to the order of the execution companyrt was set aside.
On behalf of the auction purchaser, a prayer was made for examining the file of the execution case No.3/1951 and No.22/1961.
But the decree holder did number appear.
However, the decree holder preferred an appeal to the companyrt of Second Additional Judge, Allahabad who by his order dated 3.10.1964 allowed the appeal and dismissed the objections filed by the objectors with companyts.
the Civil Judge passed an order on 31.4.1961 striking off the execution case for the time being.
Hanuman Das went up in appeal to the High Court and companytended that the sons were liable for the payment of the fathers debt.
In that case, it was prayed that the record of the original case No.
J. Late Hanuman Das filed a suit for recovery of money against Raghunandan Ram and his sons Mewalal, Misri Lal and Sewa Lal and his brother Babunandan Ram.
