Chandrashekhar vs State of Karnataka

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—Petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of late Chandrashekhar who was the owner in respect of the land in Sy. No. 342, measuring 15 acre 36 gunta situated at Aurad (B) village, taluk and district Bidar. The respondent No. 1 had acquired the land and compensation was awarded to the claimant and the claimant''s case was referred to the Reference Court and compensation was enhanced. Chandrashekhar filed execution petition and during the pendency of the said execution petition, he died. His legal representatives, i.e. the petitioners herein, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC to come on record as legal representatives of decree holder late Chandrashekhar. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bidar has rejected the same by disposing of the said application with a direction to approach afresh after obtaining Succession Certificate. The said order has been challenged in this petition on the ground that the learned Civil Judge has committed an error. His order is contrary to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and also of this Court.

The learned counsel referred to sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the CPC which reads as under:

"(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rukhsana (Smt) and Others Vs. Nazrunnisa (Smt) and Another, and also of an unreported judgment of this Court in CRP No. 968/2003 (MISC) dated 28.03.2003. As per the provisions of Section 47 of CPC and also in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Succession Certificate need not to be produced by the legal representatives. If at all the genuineness of the document is doubted by the Court, the same could be determined by the Civil Court as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the CPC.

The learned AGA appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that the Court wants to satisfy itself about the status of legal representatives of deceased decree holder and also with regard to the genuineness of the document. Therefore, he submits that the order passed by the Executing Court is sound and proper and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have heard both sides. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rukhsana''s case supra has held as under:

"3. We cannot approve the said view of the High Court, for, Succession Certificate as envisaged in the Indian Succession Act can be granted only in respect of "debts" or "securities" to which a deceased was entitled. The amount involved in this case was not a debt or security to which the deceased was entitled. This was a compensation sanctioned on amount of the death of the deceased and is, therefore, not an asset belonging to the deceased but an amount which the legal representatives of the deceased can claim on their own account. The civil court will only decide as to who are the legal representatives and in what shares they are entitled to as per the Personal Law applicable to them. The Parties will move appropriate application before the court concerned for expediting the procedure regarding disbursement of the amount. With these observations we set aside the impugned order." 6. This Court in an unreported judgment in CRP No. 968/2003 disposed of on 28.03.2003 by referring the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of RUKHSANA (supra) has held as under:

"5. In view of the settled principle of law, it is clear that the compensation amount cannot be treated as debt or security and the Court will have to see that such amounts have to be disbursed to the rightful persons. In view of the ratio laid down in the decision and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of the court, the order of the learned Civil Judge does not required reconsideration." 7. Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the CPC is clear in this regard. As per the said provision, where the question arises as to whether any person is the legal representative of the party in question, that can be ascertained by the Civil Court by recording the evidence satisfy itself as to whether the person who has approached the Court is legal representative and is a genuine person or not. When such provision is available, it is not open for the Civil Court to issue a direction to the petitioners to produce the Succession Certificate.

In the light of the judgments referred above and also in view of the provisions of the CPC, this petition has to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bidar dated 19.02.2014 in E.P. No. 100/2011 is set aside and the learned Judge is directed to consider the judgments referred supra and also the provisions of CPC in this regard and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.