The petitioner is the son of Late.Kaliappan. It is found that the first respondent / plaintiff has levied the suit, in O.S.No.254 of 2004, against the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased Kaliappan, for recovery of money. It is found that the said suit had ended in a decree in favour of the first respondent / plaintiff empowering him to recover the suit amount with interest as directed therein from and out of the estate of the deceased Kaliappan in the hands of his legal representatives.
2. Putting the above said decree in execution, it is found that the first respondent / plaintiff had levied E.P.No.50 of 2007 against the petitioner, under Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking for a direction to attach the salary of the petitioner for the payment of the decreetal amount. The said execution petition was resisted by the petitioner contending that the employment, which he has secured is provided on the basis of the compassionate ground on the death of his father and therefore, in the wake of said employment, the salary derived by him cannot be characterized as the estate of the deceased Kaliappan and in such view of the matter, the decree having been passed for recovery of money only as against the estate of the deceased Kaliappan in the hands of his legal representatives, the present execution petition levied by the plaintiff seeking to attach the salary of the petitioner, which is his personal income for the services rendered by him in the hospital, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the attachment of the same and hence, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, holding that inasmuch as the debt had been incurred by the deceased Kaliappan, accordingly, further holding that the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased Kaliappan, has a duty under law to discharge the said debt on the doctrine of pious obligation and thus, entertained the execution petition and ordered the attachment of his salary. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
4. As seen above, the decree had been passed in favour of the plaintiff for the recovery of the money as against the legal representatives of the deceased Kaliappan only in respect of the estate, which they had derived from the deceased Kaliappan. It is, thus, found that no personal decree has been passed against the legal representatives of the deceased Kaliappan. It is further seen that the plaintiff is entitled only to enforce the decree as against the estate of the deceased Kaliappan lying in the hands of his legal representatives.
5. It is now found that the petitioner has secured the employment in the hospital, wherein his father was serving, on compassionate ground and accordingly, he having been absorbed in service is found to be drawing salary for the services rendered by him in the hospital. It is, thus, found that the employment offered to the petitioner is based on different considerations and the said employment cannot in any manner be described as the estate of his deceased father. In such view of the matter, it is found that whatever the salary derived by the petitioner out of the said employment could only be construed as his personal income and not as the amount derived out of the estate of the deceased Kaliappan. In such view of the matter, it is found that the execution petition laid by the plaintiff for the attachment of the salary in continuation of the decree obtained by him is not maintainable as per law.
6. However, the Court below had entertained the execution petition on the ground of pious obligation. It is the reasoning of the Court below that the petitioner being the son of the deceased Kaliappan is duty bound to discharge the said debt on the doctrine of pious obligation and hence, his salary is liable to be attached for the payment of the decreetal amount. However, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the doctrine of pious obligation has no role to the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly, at the stage of the execution proceedings. When the Executing Court is bound to execute the decree only as per the terms of the decree and when the decree empowers the plaintiff to recover the amount only from the estate of the deceased Kaliappan lying in the hands of his legal representatives, it is found that the reasoning of the Court below that even otherwise, the petitioner is liable to discharge the said decreetal amount on the doctrine of pious obligation as such cannot be countenanced. As seen above, there is no personal decree passed against the legal heirs of the deceased Kaliappan. When it is found that the employment secured by the petitioner on compassionate ground is based on separate considerations and cannot be determined to be the estate of the deceased Kaliappan, it is seen consequently that the salary derived by him would only be his personal income and the same could not be proceeded with in respect of the decree obtained by the first respondent / plaintiff. It is, therefore, found that the Court below has committed a serious flaw and mistake in ordering the attachment of the salary of the petitioner as against the terms of the decree obtained by the first respondent / plaintiff. Thus, the impugned order of the Court below does not stand scrutiny in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. In conclusion, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 31.10.2007, passed in E.P.No.50 of 2007 in O.S.No.254 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, are set aside and consequently, E.P.No.50 of 2007 is dismissed with costs. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
1.The Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil.
2.The Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.
.