IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a succession certificate is issued, it cannot be challenged in execution proceedings, and certain objections related to the decree cannot be raised in execution.

JUDGMENT

1. The revision petitioner, among the other contentions, mainly stressed that the decree cannot be executed by the legal representative of the deceased DHr as the succession certificate was issued in a petition barred by limitation.

2. This civil revision petition is filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') against the order dtd. 27/7/2022 allowing E.P. No.34 of 2019 in O.S. No.11 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, passed under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC in the execution petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 48 CPC for attachment of the salary of the judgment debtor (JDr) for realization of the decreetal amount.

3. Heard Sri T.Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

4. The revision petitioner is the JDr /defendant and the respondents are legal representatives of the decree holder (decree holder is the plaintiff).

5. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows:

Sri Saladi Tata Rao, the father of the petitioners obtained a decree on 15/3/2008 against the defendant/JDr before Lok Adalat, Amalapuram, in O.S. No.11 of 2008. As per the decree, the JDr has to pay Rs.1,60,000.00 to the decree holder on or before 31/8/2008, failing which the decree holder is entitled to recover the same with interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till realization. Subsequently, the father of the petitioners died on 21/2/2010 leaving his six children, who are the petitioners 1 to 6 in the execution petition. On 3/8/2013, the wife of Sri Saladi Tata Rao also died. Subsequent to the death of Sri Saladi Tata Rao and his wife Smt. Varalakshmi, the petitioners in the execution petition alone are entitled to recover the amount in the said decree. Therefore, they filed a petition under Sec. 370 of the Indian Succession Act before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, vide S.O.P. No.120 of 2017 to grant succession certificate to recover the decree debt in O.S. No.11 of 2008. The petition was allowed, and the succession certificate was issued on 17/7/2018. It is the further case of the petitioners that the JDr is working as a School Assistant in the Government Girijana Girls Ashram High School, Singampalli of Rajvommangi Mandal and getting nearly Rs.50,000.00 per month with all allowances, however, the JDr is neglecting to pay the decreetal amount. Hence, the execution petition was filed.

6. When the notice was issued under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, the JDr filed a counter denying the liability under the award and further stating as follows:

The JDr discharged debt during the life time of Sri Saladi Tatarao, who failed to return the promissory notes in spite of all repeated demands, but due to pressure of work, the JDr was under the belief of the words of Sri Saladi Tatarao to return them and kept silent, however, subsequent to the death of Saladi Tata Rao in the year 2010, the JDr surprisingly received summons from the Court in O.S. No.88 of 2014 filed by Sri Poppala Ramasurya Bhaskar Rao based on the promissory note allegedly executed by the JDr. When the JDr made enquiries about the same, he came to know that the 2nd petitioner, taking advantage of promissory notes kept with them after the death of his father Tatarao, brought into existence a false promissory note through his friend, Sri Poppala Ramasurya Bhaskar Rao and the said suit was dismissed on 20/11/2015 on contest by the JDr. Later, an appeal was preferred against the said judgment. Again, the 2nd petitioner got filed another suit in O.S. No.22 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuram, through his henchmen Sri Adikari Veera Venkata Satya Narayana, and the same was decreed. In pursuance thereto, E.P. No.23 of 2016 was filed for realization of the decreetal amount by attachment and recovery from the salary of the JDr to an amount of Rs.2,40,809.00. Due to the suspension of the JDr from his job, the recovery of salary after six months was stopped. As such, the 2nd petitioner mig