The main legal point established in the judgment is that under S.214(1) of the Indian Succession Act, the legal representative of the deceased creditor has to produce a succession certificate for obtaining a decree for the realization of a debt due to the deceased.

1. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor in a decree for recovery of amounts passed in favour of one Chandrasekhara Pillai. While E. P. No. 100 of 1975 was pending, Chandrasekhara Pillai died on 10-2-77 and a memo to that effect was filed by the decree-holder's Advocate. The case was thereafter posted for further steps. The present respondent got herself impleaded as the legal representative of the original decree-holder. When steps under Order XXI, R.37 of the Code of Civil Procedure were taken, the petitioner filed objection disputing the amount claimed and his liability for being arrested. He also contended that the respondent as the additional decree-holder was not competent to proceed with the execution without production of the succession certificate. The petition stood posted to 31-10-1977. On that date, the respondent and her counsel were not present and the petition was dismissed.

2. The respondent thereafter filed E. P. No. 8 of 1978 seeking execution of the decree. The petitioner was absent on the date when the execution petition came up for hearing. The court held that means of the petitioner and his refusal to make payment stood proved by the affidavit filed by the decree-holder. The executing court ordered issue of warrant against judgment-debtor. It is against this order that the present revision petition is filed.

3. The main contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is based on S.214(1) of the Indian Succession Act relating to production of the succession certificate. The argument is that the Court should have insisted on the production by the respondent of the succession certificate entitling her to recover the amount before proceeding with the execution petition. S.214(1) reads:

No Court shall

(a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof, or

(b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming of

(i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased, or

(ii) a certificate granted under S.31 or S.32 of the Administrator General's Act, 1913 and having the debt mentioned therein, or

(iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein, or

(iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889, or

(v) a certificate grafted under Bombay Regulation No. V11I of 1827, and if granted after first day of May, 189, having the debt specified therein.'

4.According to the petitioner, it was incumbent that the respondent should produce the succession certificate before she is permitted to proceed with the execution of the decree. The respondent, on the other hand, would say that production of the succession certificate is necessary only incases where the original decree-holder did not seek execution of the decree and the legal representative for the first time moves for execution and not in cases where the decree-holder dies pending disposal of an execution petition filed by him and the legal representative is impleaded during the pendency of that execution petition. Following the above reasoning it is stated that since the respondent got hereself impleaded during the pendency of E.P. 100 of 1975 filed by the original decree-holder, she is competent to execute the decree without production of a succession certificate.

5. No decisions of the Kerala High Court directly on the point have been brought to my notice. The Travancore-Cochin High Court had occasion to consider the point in Narayana Pillai v. Narayana Panicker (1956 KLT. 852). After the death of the original decree-holder in that case, his legal representatives were impleaded as additional decree holders 2 to 7 and the rights of decree-holders 3 to 7 w