High CourtsSingle Bench

Devendrappa vs The Assistant Commissioner, Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 14 January 2015 · Citation: (2015) 01 KAR CK 0322

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narayana Swamy, J.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 47
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 205634/2014 (GM-CPC)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 718 words

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Executing Court wherein his application was allowed, however with a rider to produce Succession Certificate. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of the Executing Court.

2.

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 petitioner 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 an unreported judgment of this Court in CRP No. 968/2003 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.

4.

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 petitions.

5.

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 referred 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 arisen 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 and satisfy itself as to whether the person 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 petitioner to produce the Succession Certificate.

8.

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 Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Raichur, dated 30.07.2014 in L.A.C. No. 121/2006 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.