Tej Ram and Another vs State of Haryana

A.L. Bahri, J.—This revision petition is directed against order dated February 17, 1990, passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby execution application filed by Rajesh and Tej Ram was dismissed with the observation that they should hut obtain succession certificate/letters of probate in respect of the Will of Smt. Janki Devi.

Some land of Janki Devi was acquired for which compensation was fixed. Her refererance u/s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act was decided by the Additional District Judge. Thereafter High Court decided R.F.A. No. 1454 of 1982, allowing compensation at the rare of Rs. 19/- per square yard with 15 per cent solatiasn and interest at the rate of 6 per cent with costs. After the death of Smt. Janki Devi, the present execution application was filed by Rajesh and Tej Ram claiming the amount of compensation.

Shri C. B. Goel, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that if during the pendency of the execution decree- holder dies, his legal representatives on the basis of Will of the deceased decree-holder could continue the execution proceedings without obtaining any succession certificate or letters of probate. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision of she Patna a High Court in Raghubir Narain Singh Vs. Raj Rajeshwari Prasad Singh and Others, , and decision of the Madras High Court in Marakkal v. Eswari Ammal 1990 (1) L. L. R. 273, wherein referring to the provision of Section 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter called ''the Act'') it was held that the said provision only bars the institution of the execution proceed- ings and not the continence of such proceedings which were instituted by the original decree-holder. Execution proceedings having once been instituted by the original decree-holder, his Segal heirs could continue them without the production of the succession certificate. As far as proposition of law is concerned, it is so, as has been held by the two Courts referred to above. I am also of the same view. However, on facts of the present case, the position is different- In the present case earlier execution application was filed by Jaiaki Devi which was disposed of in February 1984 The present execution application was filed by Rajesh and Tej Ram claiming to be legal representatives of Janki Devi deceased on the basis of her will. Thus, in the circumstances stated, there was no question of continuing the execution application filed by the original decree holder.

Shri Goel has further relied upon a decision of the Patina High Court in Lakhan Mahto and Another Vs. State of Bihar, . However, ratio of this decision cannot be applied to the case in hand. Id that case compensation money had already been deposited when application was moved in execution of the Award Application was filed only for withdrawal of the money. It was held that the application could not be refused as the Award already stood executed and the application for withdrawal of the money was cot the execution application Learned counsel has also relied upon decision of this Court in Ram Chand Ganesh Dass v. Sardara Singh and Anr. (1962) 64 P.L.R. 265, wherein it was held that no probate was necessary in order to set up a claim regarding property on the basis of a will executed in Punjab and not relating to property situated in the territories mentioned in Section 57(a) of the Act. The ratio of the decision again cannot be applied to the facts of the case in hand. The other decision relied upon is of this Court in Ravi Parkash and Another Vs. Chuni Lal and Others, , wherein it was held that the transferee could continue the execution filed by the transferer decree-bolder. Again ratio of this decision cannot be applied in the present case as the execution was not filed by decree holder Janki Devi which was pending when her legal representatives filed the present application.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.