Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act does not bar the institution of a suit for debt recovery by legal heirs, only the passing or execution of a decree without a certificate; limitation for mortgage debt begins when the money becomes due under the terms of the mortgage agreement.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Heard Ms. M.S.V.S.Sudha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents in spite of service.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant in the suit, challenging the Order dated 15.07.2025, by which, the petitioner's application I. A. No. 565 of 2022 in O. S. No. 1225 of 2017, under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') has been rejected by the learned VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.

I. Facts:

3. O.S.No.1225 of 2017 was filed for a decree of payment of money with interest based on the mortgage deed in Document No.445/2004, dated 26.02.2004 and in case of default, to pass a final decree for sale of the plaint schedule property i.e., the mortgage property with some further reliefs.

4. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement and the suit is pending before the Court of VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam. I.A.No.565 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint under Clauses (a) and (d) of Order VI Rule 11 CPC. The plea was taken that the suit is barred by limitation. The husband of the 1^st respondent (1^st plaintiff) and the father of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 (plaintiffs 2 to 4) the minors by name Mutta Pydiraju, represented by the 1^st plaintiff, died on 04.01.2014, and in his favour the mortgage deed was executed. The plaintiffs did not obtain succession certificate before filing of the suit as per Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The plea taken was that the suit was filed without obtaining succession certificate and so was not maintainable under law. Further, that it was barred by limitation having been filed on 11.10.2017, after more than 12 years from the date of the mortgage deed, dated 26.02.2004.

5. The plaintiffs/respondents filed objections/counter in the application. The execution of the mortgage deed dated 26.02.2004 was admitted which was not cancelled at any point of time. The petitioner/defendant did not deny that the plaintiffs were the legal heirs of the deceased Pydiraju. It was pleaded that the succession certificate was not required and on the plea of limitation, it was pleaded that though the mortgage deed was executed on 26.02.2004 and the suit was filed on 11.10.2017, but as per para-4 of the mortgage deed, the principal and interest amount was payable within two years from the date of execution of the mortgage deed. So, the period of limitation started after two years from the date of execution i.e., with effect from 25.02.2006 and so the suit was filed within 12 years period. The application was filed to drag on the proceedings of the suit and deserved rejection.

II. Impugned Order of the Trial Court:

6. The learned trial Court framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of rejection of plaint filed by respondents in O.S,No.1225 of 2017, as prayed for?”

7. The learned VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam held that as per Article 62 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation, to enforce payment of money secured by a Mortgage Deed, of 12 years, commences from the date when the money sued for becomes due. As per the recitals of the registered mortgage deed, two years from the date of execution of the mortgage deed was clearly provided for making payment which was completed on 25.02.2006, and therefore, the suit filed on 11.10.2017 was within the period of limitation of 12 years.

8. On the point of requirement of succession certificate to file the suit by the plaintiffs on the death of Pydiraju, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs are the Class-I legal heirs and the suit was filed in that capacity for recovery of money due under the registered mortgage deed. On such point of necessity of succession certificate for the plaintiffs to institute the suit, the le