Katta Janamma (died) by LR and Another vs N. Anantha Reddy

Seshasayana Reddy, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20-9-2002 passed in E.A. No. 1 of 2002 in E.P.No. 14 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that he has not placed on record the succession certificate.

One Katta Janamma obtained a money decree against the respondent in OS No. 77 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. She filed execution petition for realization of the decretal amount. Pending E.P., she died. The petitioner herein filed E.A.No. 2 of 2002 to bring him on record on the ground that Katta Janamma executed registered Will on 31-1-1994 bequeathing her entire properties to him. The respondent herein who is a judgment debtor filed counter disputing the Will. The leaned Senior Civil Judge without deciding the validity of the Will dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that he has not produced succession certificate.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no succession certificate is necessary for pontinuation of execution application by the legal representatives of the deceased decree holder.

He placed reliance on the decisions of our High Court in Akula Mabukhan Vs. Rajamma and Others, , and Akula Rangappa (Died by L.Rs.) Akula Satyamaiah and Others Vs. Narayana Swamy, .

In Akula Mabukhan''s case (supra) the Division Bench of our High Court held as follows:

"It is only an application for execution filed by a person that comes within the prohibition enacted in Section 214(1)(b). It does not apply to a person, who seeks to come on record as the legal representative of a decree holder for the purpose of continuing that application. Consequently the continuance of an execution petition filed by the decree-holder himself by his legal representatives after the death of the decree holder is not hit at by Section 214(1)(b) and the legal representative need not produce succession certificate to continue the execution."

In Akula Rangappa''s case (supra), it has been held by our High Court that where a decree holder himself filed an execution application and he dies before executing the decree and recording the full satisfaction, the legal representatives are entitled to come on record without obtaining a succession certificate as required u/s 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act.

The question of obtaining succession certificate arises when the legal representatives themselves are seeking to execute the decree obtained by the deceased decree holder.

The preposition of law laid down by our High Court in the above two decisions is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Since the petitioner wants to continue the execution proceedings initiated by the deceased decree holder, there is no need of filing any succession certificate. The question whether the Will relied on by the petitioner is true and valid has to be examined by the Executing Court.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 20-9-2002 passed in E.A. No. 1 of 2002 in E.P. No. 14 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda and consequently E.A. No. 1 of 2002 stands restored to file. The learned Senior Civil Judge has to conduct enquiry on registered Will relied on by the petitioner hereinbefore permitting the petitioner to come on record as legal representative of deceased decree holder. No costs.