FAREEDA KHANUM and others vs DANISH CORPORATION
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Sindh High Court which modified an executing court's decree regarding the recovery of debts from the heirs of a deceased debtor. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in restricting the recovery of the debt to 44.37% of the total amount, corresponding to the shares of the remaining heirs after the petitioners had voluntarily excluded four minors from the suit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was legally sound. The Court reasoned that by choosing to delete the names of four minors from the array of defendants, the petitioners effectively surrendered their right to recover the debt portion attributable to those minors' shares in the deceased's estate. Consequently, the petitioners were only entitled to proceed against the remaining heirs, whose combined shares amounted to 44.37%. The Supreme Court found no illegality or irregularity in the High Court's modification of the execution proceedings and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Does a creditor's voluntary exclusion of certain heirs from a suit for recovery of debt limit their right to recover the debt from the remaining heirs?
- Can an executing court modify a decree to reflect the exclusion of specific defendants from the original suit?
- Is the liability of heirs for the debts of a deceased limited to the extent of their respective shares in the estate?
ORDER
' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal have been filed against the order of Sindh High Court, dated 6-12-2006 in First Appeals Nos.15 to 17 of 2006 whereby these appeals were disposed of in the following terms:- "These appeals are hereby allowed and the order of the learned District Court/Executing Court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants being heirs of the said deceased are liable to pay towards the debts of the deceased only to the extent of 44.37% and not more than that. Further, the proclamation of sale issued by the Executing Court should be corrected so as to direct the amount against the debts left by the deceased, to be recovered from the appellants shall be only to the extent of 44.37% of the debt of the deceased, and not beyond that."
2. From perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, the facts and circumstances of the case become very clear. The grievance of the petitioners is that the District Judge has passed judgment/decree for whole of the amount in the suit and subsequently, he could not restrict the same to the extent of 44.37% which was a grave and serious illegality and the High Court by not rectifying and upholding the same perpetuated the illegality. This contention is without any force. High Court has never declared the decree to be violative or defective and held that as the petitioners had agreed to delete the names of four minors from the array of defendants of the suit filed by them, therefore, they by doing so had surrendered their right to recover debt outstanding against the deceased to the extent of the shares of the aforesaid four minors in estate/moneys left by the deceased and would be entitled only to proceed against the remaining heirs of deceased, the shares of whom comes to 44.37%. This was the only correction which was made by the learned District Judge and upheld by the High Court and the same cannot in any manner said to be illegal or against any provision of law.
3. Order of the High Court does not suffer from any illegality, or irregularity which requires interference. This petition is without any substance and is dismissed. .