High CourtsSingle Bench

Unithali Ramutti and Another vs Kuttala Padmanabhan Chetti

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 December 1931 · Citation: 138 Ind. Cas. 494 : (1932) 35 LW 264

HON’BLE JUDGES
Reilly, J
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

11 paragraphs · 235 words

Reilly, J.—I see no reason to hold that an executor appointed by a will, for which probate need not be obtained and has not been obtained,

is exempted from the requirement of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, to produce a succession certificate before he can get a decree for

a debt due to the testator''s estate. The words of the section appear to me clearly to include such an executor. It is contended by Mr. Govinda

Menon that such an executor does not claim ""on succession"" within the meaning of the section. But not only would those words in their ordinary

meaning include such a testator: Clause 6(1) of the section includes among persons ""so claiming"" i.e., on succession, executors who have obtained

probate. The opinion of the Full Bench in Ramiah v. Venkatasubbamma 24 Ind. Cas. 852 : 37 Mad. 175 regarding the vesting of the testator''s

property in an executor by a will for which probate is unnecessary, does not affect this question; and it may be noticed that in that case the opinion

of Wallis, C.J., in Balakrishnudu v. Narayanaswamy Chetty 24 Ind. Cas. 852 : 37 Mad. 175, that such an executor must obtain a eucceeeion

certificate before he can get a decree for a debt is quoted with approval.

2.

This petition is dismissed.

3.

Time for obtaining the certificate is extended by two months from this date.