Section 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not bar the legal representatives of a deceased decree-holder from continuing execution proceedings that were started by the original decree-holder.

LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the orders passed in E P. No. 170 of 1981 in O S. No. 155 of 1969 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate judge, Visakhapatnam.

( 2 ) THE revision petition arose in the following circumstances. One tikkam Chand is the decree-holder having obtained the decree in O S No. 15^ of 1969 against one Pentakota baburao. the present revision petitioner tikkam Chand filed E P No. 121 of 1974 for execution of the decree against the present revision petitioner. That the proceedings in the E. P. were closed on 1-4-76 on the ground that no bidders are available. Subsequently the decree holder Tikkam Chand died.

( 3 ) THEREUPON, his wife and children filed E P. No. 170 of 1981 for execution of the decree against the judgment debtor; and also for permitting them to proceed with the execution petition as legal representatives of the decree- holder.

( 4 ) THE objection raised is, that the petition is not maintainable without filing a succession certificate, in view of Section 214 (1) (b) of the indian Succession Act. The lower court rejected the objection and permitted the petitioners to prosecute the execution petition as legal representatives of the decree-holder. Against these orders, the present revision petition is filed.

( 5 ) THE point arises for consideration is, whether Section 214 (1) (b) is a bar for the petitioner to file the execution petition and maintain the same.

( 6 ) SECTION 214 (1) (b) (iv) of the indian Succession Act reads thus: "no Court shall proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming, of a certificate granted under the Succession certificate Act, 1889 (VII of 1889 ). " that being the section, prima facie, no person is allowed to file an execution petition as heir to the decree -holder unless a certificate granted under the succession Certificate Act, 1889 (Act vii of 1889), is filed. In spite of the above section, it is not under dispute, now, that when the execution started by the original decree-holder, on his death, his heirs may continue the proceedings without succession certificate and that section 214 (1) (b) has no application to such a case.

( 7 ) THEREFORE, we have now to see "whether the original decree-holder already started the execution proceedings; and whether on his death his heirs are now sought to continue the proceedings by way of this execution petition ?

( 8 ) E. P. No. 121 of 1974 is filed by. the original decree-holder, and it is closed in the year 1976. for lack of bidders. According to the present revision petitioner, the proceedings now started by the legal representatives of the deceased is not a continuation of the execution proceedings in E. P. No. 121 of 1974, and this is a new proceeding, and therefore, -they have to comply with Section 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Certificate act. On the othar hand it is contended for the respondents that the execution is already started by the decree -holder by filing E. P. No. 121 of 1974, and therefore, the present petition e. P. No. 170 of 1981, filed by the son of the petitioner, who is heir of the deceased, "s deemed to be continuation of E. P. No. 121 of 1974, since the same is only closed and not dismissed because of any default on the part of the decree-holder.

( 9 ) IN a decision reported in Koti- palli Apparao v. Jakkam Venkanna and others (1) (1969) II An. W. R. 479 a bench of this Court held, that the language employed in Sec 214 (1) (b) is plain and clear enough to indicate that no Court shall proceed to execute a decree upon an application by a person claiming entitled thereto on succession. In the above case, the petitioner, therein filed an execution petition in a. decree obtained by his deceased father against the respondents, "alleging, that he was entitled to realise the decree amount under a will executed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document