1. The revision is against the order of the District Munsif of Salem in E.P No. 663 of 1981 in O.S No. 1163 of 1978. The judgment debtors-respondents in the execution petition are the revision petitioners.
2. The respondent herein obtained a decree for money against one Chandramouli and the second respondent in the execution petition. The said Chandramouli died subsequently in a motor vehicle accident and the revision petitioners are his heirs and legal representatives. In M.A.C.A 3 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, compensation has been awarded to the revision petitioners in respect of the death of late Chandramauli. The respondent filed the execution petition in execution of his decree in O.S 1163 of 1978 and sought attachment of the amount of compensation awarded to the revision petitioners on account of the death of the late Chandramouli. The respondents objected to the attachment; but, the learned District Munsif overruled the objection and ordered attachment. Hence this revision.
3. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the amount of compensation awarded for the death of a person is not liable to be attached in execution of the decree against the deceased, for, the said amount of compensation is not the asset of the deceased. The point has come up for consideration in the matter of estate duty. In Smt. Lakshmisagar Reddy v. Controller Of Estate Duty, Hyderabad. . 123 I.T.R 601., a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that in order to hold that a particular property belonged to the estate of the deceased, (1) the property must be in existence at any time before the death of the deceased; (2) the deceased must have a beneficial interest, be it in praesenti or contingent, in the property; (3) the deceased must be in possession and control, be it actual, constructive or beneficial, of the property; and (4) the deceased must have power to dispose of such property. The amount of compensation awarded by the Accidents Claims Tribunal is payable to his real heirs only and on account of his death. The said amount cannot be said to have been part of the estate of the deceased. It is not therefore liable to be attached as the asset of the deceased in the hands of his legal representatives.
4. So far as the second respondent is concerned, the decree has been made personally against him and hence his share of compensation amount is liable to be attached.
5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The order of the Court below is modified. The compensation awarded in M.A.C.A No. 3 of 1981 is held not liable to be attached in execution of the decree against the deceased Chandramouli except the share of the second respondent and the attachment is raised to that extent. There will be no order as to costs in this revision.
VCS.
Comments