The main legal point established is that under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, legal representatives of a deceased decree-holder must obtain a succession certificate before realizing the decretal amount in execution proceedings, regardless of when they initiate or join the proceedings.

( 1 ) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise out of orders passed by the Executing Court, wherein the Executing Court directed the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holders to produce Succession Certificate for enforcing the decretal claim and for purposes of collecting the decretal amounts. Details as to Civil Revision Petitions and execution proceedings are mentioned herein in tabular statement :- tabular statement

( 2 ) TWO important points have arisen for consideration. Point No. 1) Whether it is mandatory for the legal representative/legal representatives of deceased decree-holder to produce succession certificate as envisaged under Section 214 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, in cases where they initiate execution proceedings in the first instance as claiming himself or herself or themselves as legal representatives on succession to the estate of the deceased decree-holder. Point No. 2 :- Whether in cases where the legal representatives come on record during the pendency of the execution proceedings initiated by the deceased decree-holder, then in such events is it obligatory to produce succession certificate to continue the execution proceedings.

( 3 ) ORDER passed in Execution proceeding which is the subject-matter of the Civil Revision Petition No. 2273 of 1992 arises out of execution proceeding wherein the legal representatives who had already been brought on record in an execution petition filed by the deceased decree-holder having initiated execution proceeding. Judgement debtors have raised common following objection to the excitability of the decrees in all the above execution proceedings. 1) Compensation awarded by the reference Court in Land Acquisition cases partakes the character of a debt and as such provisions of Section 214 of the Succession Act are applicable and the legal representative of deceased decree-holders cannot execute the decree without obtaining and producing succession certificate in respect of the award amount sought to be executed. In Kesoram Industries v. Wealth-tax Commissioner (Central) reported in AIR 1966 SC 1370, the Supreme Court has observed while dealing with the scope of definition of debt in Section 2 (m) of Wealth-tax Act :- "there is no conflict on the definition of the word 'debt'. All the decisions agree that the meaning of expression 'debt' may take colour from the provisions of the concerned 'act'. It may have different shades of meaning. But the following definition is unanimously accepted. "a debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in future by reason of a present obligation debitum in praesenti solvendum in futuro. "the expression 'debt' in Section 214 (2) is of wide amplitude to take in compensation amount payable under the Land Acquisition Act. Such of those liabilities which do not constitute debts have been excluded from the definition of the word debt in Sub-Section (2 ). All liabilities other than those excluded in Sub-Section (2) will be debts within the meaning of the word 'debt'. The necessity for obtaining a Succession Certificate cannot be waived by the parties. The obligation is not merely one in favour of debtor. It benefits also those interested in the deceased's estate by requiring that moneys forming the part of the estate shall only be paid to a person who has been considered suitable for the grant of succession certificate. In P. L. Basappa v. Siddamma reported in (1965) 2 Mys LJ 167, this Court has discussed the scope of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act and as well as Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Relevant passages in the Judgement are :-"it is not denied that the respondent had no right in the amount decreed during the life time of her husband. It is also not denied that she did not get the property in question by survivorship. She acquired a right for portion of decree in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 30 of 1956 ). This Section regulates