L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 18-08-2004 passed by the Court of senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, in E. A. No, 85 of 2003, dismissing an application filed in E. P. No. 106 of 1997 in O. P. No. 38 of 1987.

( 2 ) THE lands of the petitioners 1 and 2were acquired by the Government, under the land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of srisailam Project. Award was passed by the respondent. Not being satisfied with the same, they sought for reference, and it was taken up by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, wanaparthy, as O. P. No. 38 of 1987. After the decree passed therein became final, they filed E. P. No. 106 of 1997, for recovery of the amount. The amount has since been deposited by the respondent. In the meanwhile, the 2nd petitioner died on 7-5-2003.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS 3 to 6 filed E. A. No. 29 of 2004, under Section 146 of C. P. C. , to bring them on record as legal representatives of the 2nd petitioner. The E. A. was allowed on 21-04-2004. Thereafter, petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 filed E. A. No. 85 of 2003, for issuance of cheque, for the amount deposited to the credit of the E. P. The executing Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners 3 to 6 did not file the succession certificate, and in that view of the matter, their request is barred under Section 214 of the Indian Succession act, (for short the Act ).

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitionerssubmits that Section 214 of the Act applies only to those cases where the suits, or execution petitions, as the case may be, are filed for the first time, by the persons claiming to be successors of a deceased person, and not where proceedings were already initiated, by the persons, entitled to such effects or benefits. He submits that, in cases where suits or execution petition is filed by the person actually entitled to, and he is dead, during the pendency of such proceedings, Section 146 and Order 22 of c. P. C. , get attracted, and filing of succession certificate cannot be insisted, in such cases. He places reliance upon certain judgments rendered by this Court, in support of his contention. He also submits that there was no justification for the Executing Court in refusing the relief for the 1 st petitioner also.

( 5 ) LEARNED Government Pleader forarbitration, on the other hand, submits that section 214 of the Act applies to all matters, pertaining to money decrees, and it is immaterial whether death of the decree- holder occurs before institution of the suit/ e. P. or thereafter.

( 6 ) THE short question that falls forconsideration in this C. R. P. , is, as to whether the bar contained in Section 214 of the Act applies to the proceedings, which are already instituted or initiated. It is a matter of record that a decree was passed in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2, in O. P. No. 38 of 1987, and E. P. No. 106 of 1997 was filed by them in the year 1977. The decretal amount was deposited; the 2nd petitioner died as late as on 07-05-2003, during the pendency of a petition for issuance of cheque. Petitioners 3 to 6 were permitted to come on record as legal representatives of deceased 2nd petitioner, vide orders in E. A. No. 29 of 2004. The Executing Court rejected the application filed by petitioners 1 and 3 to 6, for issuance of cheque, on the ground that the petitioners 3 to 6 did not file succession certificate. It relied upon the judgment of this court in L. I. C. of India v. T. Tirupathayya, which in turn followed a judgment of the bombay High Court in Abdul Majid v. Shamsherali. It also relied upon the judgment in G. Shivakumar v. Md. Nasim and others.

( 7 ) SECTION 214 occurs in Part-VIII of theact, comprising of Sections 211 to 216. Part VIII deals with the representative title to the property of a deceased, on succession. It mostly refers to executors or administrators, and the effect of probate or the letters of administration, as the case may be, in relation to the properties left by a deceased. S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document