Q^aqg_u Parsharamulu v. Guduri Uma @-Um{an!, wo Late Qyrqldqr

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B. Ariun Rao Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ctvtL REVISION PETITION No 715oF 2025 DATE: 18.02. 2026 Between: Gangu Parsharamulu AND Guduri Uma @ Umaraniand Others ORDER: ...Petitioner ...Respondents This Civil Revision petition is directed against the order dated

24.06.2025 passed in E.P. No. 7 of 2024 in O.S. No. 112 of 2020 by the learned Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sircilla.

2. Heard Sri B. Arjun Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

3.1. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that he instituted o.s. No. 172 of 2020 before the learned principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajanna Sircilla, seeking recovery of a sum of 2 Rs.3,00,000/- from the legal representatives of late Guduri surender, who had borrowed the said amount and thereafter passed away.

3.2- The trial court, by judgment dated 11.or.2022, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said dismissar, the petitioner prefened A.s. No. 11 of 2022 before the tearned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajanna sircilla. By judgment dated 24.01.2024, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, holding respondents 1 to 3 riabte to pay a sum of Rs.S,1o,0oo/- together with interest at go/o per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at60/o per annum from the date of decree until realization, on the principal sum of Rs.3,00,OOO/-.

3.3. Pursuant to the said decree, the petitioner initiated execution proceedings by filing E.p. No. 7 of 2024, seeking aftachment of the petition schedule property. The Executing court, however, dismissed the Execution Petition on the grounds that the property sought to be attached did not stand in the names of the judgment debtors; that the material placed on record was insufficient to establish that the property had devolved upon the legal representatives; that the documents were produced by family members and not by the 3 recorded owner; and that the property was stated to be subject to a subsisting m,lrtgage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the view taken by the Executing Court is legally untenable. The decree has been passed against the legal representatives of the original borrower. The proper.ty in question stood in the name of the deceased borrower. Upon his demise, the property necessarily devolved upon his legal representatives as his estate. Therefore, the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against such estate in execution of the decree. It is further contended that Sections 52 and 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') expressly contemplate execution against the estate of a deceased judgment debtor in the hands of legal representatives. The existence of a mortgage does not bar attachment; it merely renders the attachment subject to prior encumbrances.

5. Despite service of notice, the respondents remained absent.

6. I have perused the record and considered the submissions 4 t\te 4,.\ ,. .,- ', Ii't .. +<f 1\

7. The point for determination is, whether the dismissal of the ) petition for attachment of the schedule property by the Executing Court is sustainable in law?

8. The undisputed facts borne out by the record are that the decree was ultimately passed against the respondents in their capacity as legal representatives of the deceased borrower; the said decree has attained finality; and the Execution Petition was filed seeking attachment of property alleged to form part of the estate of the deceased.

9. The petitioner's assertion that the schedule proper$ stood in the name of Guduri Surender is substantiated by Ex.P3 - the Statement of Encumbrance Certificate (Application No. 480387 dated

21.12.2024) issued by the Sub-Registrar, Sircilla and Ex.PS - the certified copy of the Partition Deed vide Document No. 3613 of 2013 dated 25.07.2013. These documents prima facie establish that the property was held in the name of the deceased borrower.

10. With regard to the liability of legal representatives, Section 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides that where a decree is passed against the legal representative of a deceased , person, it may be executed by attachment and sale of any property 5 of the deceased which has come into the hands of such legal representative and has not been duly disposed of. 1'1. The said provision makes it abundantly clear that the liability of a legal representative is not personal in nature, but is limited strictly to the extent of the estate of the deceased that has come into his or her hands. The Supreme Court, in Jugal Kishore Saraf v. Raw Cofton Co. ,!-td., AIR 1955 SC 376, recognized that the estate of a deceased debtor in the hands of legal representatives remains liable for satisfaction of lawful debts, subject to statutory limitations.

12. Secticrn 53 CPC further clarifies that, for the purposes of Section 52, property in the hands of a son or other descendant which is liable under Hindu law for payment of the debt of a deceased ancestor shall be deemed to be property of the deceased that has come into tlre hands of the legal representative

13. Therefore, even ancestral property that devolves upon legal heirs may be proceeded against in execution, subject to the governing principles of personal law and the extent of liability recognized therein.

14. The Executing Court appears to have been influenced by the existence ,:f a mortgage over the property. However, it is a seftled-. 6 principle that attachment in execution does not extinguish prior encumbran@s. An attachment is always subject to existing charges "i. \ or mortgages. Order XXI CPC does not prohibit attachment merely because the property is mortgaged. The rights of the mortgagee remain unaffected, and the decree-holder's claim would rank subject to such encumbrance. Hen@, the mere existence of a mortgage cannot constitute a valid ground to reject the Execution Petition at the threshold.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the Executing Court committed a jurisdictional error in failing to appreciate that the decree was specifically passed against the tegal representatives of the deceased borrower; in overlooking the statutory mandate under Sections 52 and 53 CPC; in treating the absence of mutation in the names of the legal representatives as conclusive without examining whether the property formed part of the estate of the deceased; and in rejecting the petition solely on the ground of a subsisting mortgage, which is legally unsustainable.

16. lt is well settled that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Once the decree fixes liability upon the legal representatives, the Court is required to examine whether the property sought to be 7 attached forms part of the estate of the deceased and, if so, to proceed strictly in accordance with law.

17. !n the ores€rt case, the documentary evidence prima facie indicates that the property stood in the name of the deceased borrower ancl, therefore, forms part of his estate. The Executing Court ought lo have proceeded with attachment, subject to existing encumbrances, and thereafter conducted further proceedings in \ \ accordance rarith Order XXI CPC.

18. ln view of the statutory scheme under sections s2 and 53 cpc and the settleld legal position governing execution against the estate of a deceased judgment debtor, the impugned order dated

24.06.2025 passed in E.P. No. 7 ot 2024 in o.S. No. 1 TZ of 2o2o by the learned Drincipal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sircilla, is legally unsustainable.

19. Accordingly, the impugned order ig set aside and E.p. No. 7 of 2024 is restored to file. The Executing Court is directed to examine whether the r;chedule property constitutes the estate of the deceased judgment debtor and to proceed with attachment and further execution proceedings stricfly in accordance with law, keeping in 8 view the limitations under Sections 52 and 53 CPC and the rights of {l any encumbrancers.

20. ln the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. /,TRUE COPY" Sd,. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6; SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Honourable Sri Justice N.Tukaramii (For His Lordship kind Perusal) To,

1. The Princi Rajanna Si ipal Junior Civil Judge4um-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at ircilla. ?. 1't LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

5. One CC to Sf B. Arjun Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies VIYBA d{- HIGH COURT DATED: 1810212026 I ) .J ( * 1HE SIA 17 r,lAfl 2[m * ORDER CRP.No.4715 ot 2O25 ALLOWING THE CRP T .( .t a6.