Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 775 (AP)

Q. Hema v. Vadali Lalitha Prasad

2024-07-12

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2024
ORDER : 1. The present revision is filed against the order dated 04.01.2023 passed in E.P. No. 72 of 2012 in O.S. No. 778 of 2011 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vishakapatnam. 2. The petitioner is the respondent in the E.P. Respondent herein filed E.P. No. 72 of 2012 under order XXI Rule 52 of C.P.C. to attach compensation amount lying in the account of P.L.A.C.21/2011 in custody of Principal District Judge, Vishakapatnam. The Trail Court after considering the rival submissions of both parties allowed the O.P. Hence, the revision. 3. Heard Sri. Venkatareddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation amount granted to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband is not attachable as the same is not part and parcel of the estate of the deceased. 5. A reading of the plaint would indicate that the deceased husband of the petitioner had taken the premises on lease from the husband of the respondent. Unfortunately, both the husband of the petitioner as well as brother-in-law of the plaintiff/respondent died in an accident while attending the marriage of plaintiff/respondent’s son in 2010. In the said accident, the plaintiff/respondent also suffered serious injuries. In view of the accident, the schedule premises was not opened and eventually in August, 2012, the petitioner handed over the premises to the respondent. 6. It is in the interregnum period of June, 2010 till August, 2012, the suit for recovery of arrears of rent against this petitioner was decreed ex-parte on 02.08.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner filed PLAC No. 21 of 2011 before the Permanent Lok Adalath and the case was compromised between the parties hereto. The amounts awarded to the petitioner under Motor Vehicle’s accident claim in view of the death of her husband was attached to an extent of Rs.90,000/-. Subsequently, the respondent filed E.P. No. 72 of 2012 to send the attached amount of Rs.90,000/- to the credit of E.P. for the respondent to realize the amounts. This application was opposed on the ground that the compensation amount cannot be attached. The trial Court rejected it on the ground that the petitioner is the judgment debtor and as such is bound to discharge the decretal amount. 7. This application was opposed on the ground that the compensation amount cannot be attached. The trial Court rejected it on the ground that the petitioner is the judgment debtor and as such is bound to discharge the decretal amount. 7. As rightly observed by the trial Court, in the interregnum period from June, 2010 to August, 2012, the shop was under the custody of the petitioner and it was the petitioner who was responsible to pay the rent during the said period. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take the defence of Motor Vehicles Compensation as not being attachable to evade payment of decretal amount. 8. Hence, no case is made out for interference. The civil revision petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.