( 1 ) THE revision petitioner filed this revision against the decree and order passed in e. A. No. 1135 of 1989 ino. E. P. No. 352 of 1988 dated 28-11-1995 on the file of the I Additional district Munsif, Chittoor in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under section 146 C. P. C. to come on record as the 2nd petitioner in the execution petition and as legal representative of the deceased decreeholder.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the revision are as follows: late R. Ramachandra Naidu filed O. E. P. 352 of 1988 on the file of the I Additional district Munsif, Chittoor against the respondents and while the execution petition was pending, he died. Thereupon, the revision petitioner Smt. T. Padma filed e. A. No. 1135 of 1989 to implead her as 2nd petitioner as she is legal representative of the deceased decreeholder. The respondents- judgmentdebtors filed counter denying the averment that she is daughter of R. Ramachandra Naidu. The wife of late ramachandra Naidu predeceased and there are no legal heirs and therefore the respondents opposed the petition filed by the revision petitioner.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner examined herself as P. W. 1 and marked Ex. A-1 to A-4. Smt. R. M. Rajamma examined herself as R. W. 1 and Ex. B-1 was marked. After considering the entire material on record, the 1st additional District Munsif, Chittoor dismissed the petition without costs on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that she is daughter of the deceased- decreeholder.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the decree and order, the revision petitioner filed the revision contending that the lower Court committed an error in dismissing the petition filed to implead her as legal representative of the deceased decree-holder. The lower Court failed to appreciate that the revision petitioner obtained Succession Certificate from the competent Court and inspite of filing the Succession Certificate the petition was dismissed on the ground that the respondents were not made as parties to the succession Certificate. The lower Court failed to appreciate that the Succession Certificate was issued by the competent Court after following due procedure and the said certificate is conclusive and as per the certificate she is entitled to recover the amount due under the decree as legal representative of the deceased-decreeholder. The lower Court failed to appreciate the ex. A-1 to A-4 and committed an error in dismissing the petition. For the above said reasons, the order may be set aside.

( 5 ) HEARD the counsel for the revision petitioner and the Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents.

( 6 ) THE Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner argued that the provisions with regard to issue of Succession Certificates are contained under Sections 370 to 390 of the indian Succession Act (for short the Act ). There is no provision in the Act that the debtors to the decree to be impleaded as respondents. Under Section 372 of the Act, the particulars to be mentioned in the application for the Succession Certificates are mentioned and the Section contemplates that near relatives and family members of the deceased have to be impleaded as respondents. In the instant case, the revision petitioner obtained Succession Certificate from the competent Court and the Court after following the procedure contemplated under the Act issued the certificate. When once the certificate is issued by a competent court, it is conclusive proof and the executing court cannot question the validity of the said certificate. It is further argued that the lower Court committed an error in dismissing the petition. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the revision petitioner has not impleaded the judgment debtors as parties to the proceedings while obtaining the Succession Certificate. The respondents contended that the petitioner has not proved that she is the daughter of the deceased ramachandra Naidu. There are no legal heirs t