( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition filed by the petitioner in E. P. No. 21 of 2003 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri.

( 2 ) THE petitioner's husband by name Kesavachari filed O. S. No. 46 of 1996 against the first respondent for recovery of the amount and the suit was decreed in favour of Kesavachari. After the decree of the suit, Kesavachari died and his L. Rs filed E. P. No. 21 of 2003 for realization of the amount under Order 21 rule 51 of C. P. C. by way of attachment of the property and to bring the property for sale for realization of the E. P. amount. The Court ordered attachment and notice and posted the E. P. on 21-04-2003. Subsequently, the respondents made their appearance in the E. P. and filed a counter by contending that earlier, the l. Rs of Kesavachari filed E. P. No. 81 of 1995 and the same was dismissed for want of succession certificate. The petitioner did not challenge the orders of dismissal of E. P. No. 81 of 1995 and the order became final. The petitioner by name Rajeswaramma, the wife of the decree holder, filed the present E. P. on the basis of a will, dated 15-08-1992 said to be executed by the decree holder kesavachari. The petitioner instead of complying the order of the Court by producing the succession certificate, projected herself as the successor of the decree holder in the present E. P. The order in E. P. No. 81 of 1995 operates as res judicata. The obtaining of succession certificate is mandatory, therefore, the e. P. is liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE lower Court dismissed the Execution Petition by observing that the petitioner failed to obtain a succession certificate under Section 214 of the indian Succession Act, 1925, therefore, the objection raised by the Judgment debtor was considered and the petitioner is directed to obtain succession certificate as per the orders in E. A. No. 101 of 2001 on or before 31-12-2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the present Revision by contending that the lower Court ought not have insisted for succession certificate in view of the production of an award passed by the Lok Adalat by declaring that the petitioner is the sole legal heir under the will, dated 15-09-1992; that the order passed by the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree for all purposes as the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be the Civil Court under sections 193, 219 and 228 of IPC and Section 22 (3) of the Legal Services authorities Act, 1987.

( 4 ) THE petitioner further contended that the lower Court failed to appreciate the facts by simply observing that the Judgment Debtor was not shown as a party to the Lok Adalat proceedings, therefore, requested to allow the Revision petition by setting aside the order of the lower Court.

( 5 ) IN the light of the above circumstances, the point for consideration is: 1) Whether the production of succession certificate by the petitioner is mandatory; and 2) Whether the decree passed by Lok Adalat can be a substitute for succession certificate for realization of the E. P. amount.

( 6 ) IT is the contention of the respondents that as the decree holder died before filing of the E. P. , the legal heirs are entitled to realize the amount in the E. P. after production of the succession certificate. The lower Court initially dismissed E. P. No. 81 of 1995 for non-production of succession certificate. The impugned order was passed in E. P. No. 21 of 2003 directing the petitioner to produce the succession certificate to order further steps in the e. P.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. M. Vidyavathi, submitted that though it is a general rule that the L. Rs of the decree holder has to produce succession certificate, it is not mandatory. She further submitted that as the petitioner produced the decree passed by the Lok Adalat holding that the petitioner is a sole legatte under the will, dated 15-09-1992 executed by the decree holder, she is entitled to all his properties and assets includ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document