A claim for unliquidated damages is not a "debt" within the meaning of Section 214 of the Succession Act. Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act only applies to decrees or orders for the payment of a debt that existed before the passing of the decree.

( 1 ) THIS re-visional application at the instance of the judgment-debtors raises a short question whether the Decree-holder opposite parties are entitled to proceed in execution of a decree obtained by their predecessor-in-interest without production of a Succession Certificate.

( 2 ) THE judgment-debtors (hereinafter called the petitioners) raised an objection that the execution case was not maintainable. This objection under Section 47 of Civil P, C. was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 1980 of the 7th Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore and the learned Subordinate Judge has, by his order dated Aug. 31, 1981 overruled the contention. Hence the revisional application.

( 3 ) THE application has been heard on notice to and upon contest by the opposite parties.

( 4 ) THE controversy arose under the following circumstances and there is no dispute as to the facts leading to the controversy. The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties instituted a suit for recovery of damages being M. S. 10 of 1966. The principal allegation in the suit was that Dilip Kumar Sur, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was appointed receiver in respect of a Jalkar in a Partition suit between the predecessors of the parties and that while acting as such Receiver the said Dilip Kumar Sur, Receiver misappropriated the profits arising out of the Jalkar which he was bound to refund. On such allegation Amiya Kumar Sur, predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties instituted M. S. 10 of 1966 for realisation of a sum of RSection 36,498. 45. The suit was decreed ex parte on 14-3-1967, in favour of Amiya Kumar Sur. The decree-holder Amiya Kumar Sur died on Nov. 30, 1975 whereupon the opposite parties filed a money execution for realisation of the decretal dues, against the present petitioner, Dilip Kumar Sur having died on 21-5-1968. The petitioners filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code contending inter alia, that in view of the provisions of Section 214 of the Succession Act the execution could not be proceeded with except on production of a succession certificate. The learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the objection by the order impugned.

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that the claim in the Money suit was a claim for recovery of damages in the hands of a Receiver who was alleged to have misappropriated the profits while in possession as Receiver. Apparently it was not a claim for a liquidated sum. To all intends and purposes it was a suit for accounts. Question is whether such a claim is a 'debt' within the meaning of Section 214 of the Succession Act. An action claiming an account is not an action for recovery of debt. Debt implies a present obligation to pay a liquidated sum of money. A claim for an unliquidated sum can hardly be called a 'debt' (see Sabju v. Noordin, (1899) ILR 22 Mad 139 ).

( 6 ) MR. Mitter appearing on behalf of the petitioners referred to the case of Sahadev v. Sk. Sakhawat, (1908) 12 Cal WN 145 in support of his contention that production of a succession certificate is necessary. The facts of this case were entirely different. There, after a preliminary decree had been made in a mortgage suit, the mortgagee died and his sons were substituted on the record and an order absolute was made in their favour. The proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property being insufficient, they applied for a personal decree for the balance. It was held that until the applicants obtained a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act no such decree could be made in their favour. Such a view was taken because there could be no doubt that there was a 'debt' and the whole debt accrued due on the dale fixed for repayment in the bond, Even though the creditor was bound to seek a particular remedy in the first instance for the satisfaction of his claim but nevertheless the debt was all the while in existence and in full vigour. The right of realisation as against the debtors personally