a Decree can be executed against the Universal Donee who holds property , with out adding him as a party directly in the money suit - Gift Deed held as nominal one. -2015 A.P. (1977) msklawreports

 
NOMINAL GIFT DEED
Second defendant who executed the settlement deed in 1958 in favour of the plaintiff was aged 30 years while the plaintiff-donee was 60 years of age. According to him it is against the normal course of human behaviour and is unnatural that a Hindu donor of 30 years of age would settle properties upon the donee who is double his age. Normally speaking a donor settles his properties on a donee who is expected to live longer. The two circumstances which have been pointed out to me are fairly strong. The learned appellate Judge has recorded several circumstances and held that there was hardly any love and affection between the second defendant and the plaintiff. 
T.P.ACT 128

the universal donee who by reason of a gift enters upon possession of the estate of the deceased donor is a " legal representative" of the deceased within the meaning of S. 2 (11) of the Civil P.C. 
which gives a very wide definition of the expression " legal represenative". It has next been observed that apart from a universal donee being a legal representative he takes the estate of the donor subject to his liabilities because S. 128 of the T.P. Act fastens liability upon the universal donee in respect of all debts due by the donor at time of gift though such liability is confined only to the extent of the properties comprised in the gift.
Section 2 (11) , Civil P.C. defines " legal representative" so as to mean " a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued".

 Therefore, the properties of the second defendant in the hands of the plaintiff could be proceeded against by the first defendant even though the plaintiff was not a party to the suit.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS