¶30 It follows from the above opinion that, in the present case, the guarantee was not intended to bind the heirs of the guarantor, but it should be noted that the court does conclude that this would not have created any other liability towards the heirs, but bases liability solely on the receipt of assets from the estate. ¶24 It is true that the liability of the heirs is as great as if it were written down in the deed, but to include it in the deed would not have established personal liability against the heirs of R. W. Hines, and personal liability, unconditionally, is covered.  We do not determine whether an application was necessary to authorize the trial court to set aside the judgment on the Hines heirs, but if so, the application was broad enough to do so under the law as found in this case. `If, by law, the creditor is only entitled to submit to payment of his claim the assets which the heir, heir or legatee has received from his debtor Epperson, the claim is manifestly deficient in that it does not indicate the property received from each in such a way that it can be submitted by decree in due form. The question that then needs to be clarified is: is the creditor entitled to a personal judgment against the heir, legatee or legatee, or does he only have the right to obtain from the debtor the assets he has received from the debtor and submit them to the claim? « 15 Having concluded that these guarantors were before the court on June 15, 1921, the date on which the verdict in favour of George Killer against Harmon was rendered, they were then charged with having announced this recovery and his right to reparation in the same action against them. And they also noted that Harmon`s right was not spelled out in the June 15 decree. However, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the fact that this Order in Council does not demonstrate the continuation of this stage of the case between Harmon and the guarantors prevented the court from considering this issue on June 16, because the June 16 newspaper entry contained the following: ¶11 It should be noted that the judgment in this case took place two years after the same judgment and, Of course, to a later court. The notice Harmon served on the persons in this case was sufficient for all those who were bound to him by deeds of guarantee in his chain of ownership. In many jurisdictions, an oral notice to the guarantor asking him to defend himself is sufficient, but in this state, Article 5262, S.O.C. 1921, provided that the notification is in writing, but nowhere is it provided that the clerk must give the notification; and having regard to the wording of articles 5262 and 5263, C.O. P.
1921, it seems clear that the opinion to be given is neither a declaration nor a procedure within the meaning of article 7, § 19 of the Constitution, nor does it fall within the scope of article 862, C.O. P. 1921. « In order to remedy some of these evils, laws were enacted in the early days of England. which imposed on the administrator a liability similar to that of the heirs and held both responsible, not only while retaining the property, but also for its value if they sold it. See the statutes in Williams on Executors, Volume 3, chap. 2. But under the common law as amended by statute, the debts of the ancestor, even by specialty, were not encumbered by a lien on the land, and the heir or foreign currency could prevent the creditor from submitting them by transferring them to a buyer in good faith before the action. Spackman v.
Timbrell, 11 eng. ch. Rep., 424. Respondents stated that the late Usha Pandit and Shripad Pandit had four sons and four daughters. After his death, each son and daughter had 1/8. The sisters of plaintiffs 1 to 3 waived their undivided share of the property claimed by a registered act of discharge and therefore had no right, title or interest in the plaintiff`s property. The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to privacy is essentially a right in personam and therefore cannot be inherited by the mothers or legal heirs of the deceased. Judge Neena Bansal. While these cases continue to reinforce the fact that legal heirs are the rightful owners of a deceased`s property, confusion remains as to how this relates to nominees. To be clear, a nominee (due to an appointment by the deceased during his or her lifetime) acts only as trustee on behalf of the legitimate legal heirs and retains all assets until the estate or inheritance has been decided and implemented.
However, NCLAT relied on the Supreme Court`s decision in World Wide Agencies Pvt Ltd(4), which held that an interpretation that the legal representatives of a deceased shareholder cannot have the same rights as a partner would be a hypertechnical view contrary to justice. The Supreme Court added: « If a claim against the estate of a deceased person arises or becomes enforceable only after the administration of the estate has been completed and all property has been distributed and passed on to the heirs, its recovery may be enforced by direct action. before the district court against the heirs of the deceased, and they may be held liable in such an action up to the amount of the property they received from the estate. « At common law, the heir took the lands which were free from all debts of the ancestor, except for the specialties to which he had been particularly bound, his responsibility in this case being the contract by which the ancestor was authorized to bind him personally to the value of the ancestral lands as long as they remained in his possession. but there was no lien on the land or personal liability on his part after he had transferred it (Investment Co. v. Smart, L. R, 10 Ch. App. Boxes 577), and the administrator released the lands from all debts of the ancestor (Sauer v. Griffin, 67 Mo. 654; 3 Williams on Executors, chap.
11), while the executor or administrator took the property to which he was entitled by law, subject to payment of the deceased`s debts. (Emphasis added.) The second article further provides (paragraph 7) that, if it is found that an adult member is fully qualified to attend to his own affairs, the Minister of the Interior may issue him with a certificate of competence authorizing him to sell and transfer all land acquired by him under the law, with the exception of his property which, at the time of issue of the certificate3, It is intended to remain inalienable for twenty-five years. or during the life of the Allottee property. Other sections reserve for the tribe for twenty-five years oil, gas, coal, and other minerals in the allocated lands and provide that tribal funds, with some exceptions, be made available to the various members « by the authorized roll » or their heirs on a proportionate portion and are held in trust by the United States for twenty-five years. The sixth article reads as follows: ¶28 In Chitty v. Gillett, 46 Okla. 724, 148 p. 1048, this Court examines in detail the circumstances in which the heirs of that state may be held liable for the debts of their ancestors and states the content of the rule as follows: « You will note: that the plaintiffs, Joshua Nofire et al., have filed a lawsuit against T.F. Harmon et al., defendant, in Sequoyah County District Court, Oklahoma, No. 2993, as noted above, to recover the following properties described in Sequoyah County, Okla.: (Country described here.) The legal representatives of a deceased member represent the estate of the member whose name is entered in the register of members. In the event of the member`s death, his estate is entrusted to the legal representatives. Therefore, if these dismissals are affected illegally or wrongly, the estate must be authorized by the legal representatives to file a request for deletion and mismanagement, and it is as if the estate were in the place of the deceased member.
It follows from the seventh stage that the land allocated is for the exclusive use of individual members or their heirs and may be leased, subject to the restriction that « all leases », whether for the benefit of individual members or their heirs, require the approval of the Minister of the Interior to be effective; and the eighth section provides that acts to the assignees shall be carried out by the chief of the tribe, but shall be valid only after approval by the Minister of the Interior. Oswal Agro Mills also relied on the Delhi High Court`s decision in Dayagen Private Limited v. Rajendra Dorian Punj,(3) in which the Court held that Article 72 takes precedence over the general law of succession and assigns full and exclusive ownership rights over shares to a nominee. ¶4 of 13. In June 1921, Harmon submitted his amended response to the plaintiffs` amended petition, claiming that he owned the land through a regular chain of ownership of the heirs of the late Indian Allottee. He gave the names of the heirs and stated that they had been transferred to W. H. Brackett and that title had come by regular chain to W. E. Matthews, who transferred the land to him by deed of guarantee.
The court held that if an injunction can be enforced on the basis of a statutory provision of Section 50 ZPO against a person other than the judgement debtor, it can be enforced both against the son who inherits his father`s estate and against a person who was common with the father and registered as his legal representative. « That the land described above by R. W. Hines, W. R. Gragg, J. E. Patrick and W.
E. Matthews by their respective deeds of guarantee and the defendant T.