Point of Law: The succession certificate could be granted only in respect of `debts' and `securities' and the compensation amount under the Motor Vehicles Act did not come under `debts' or `securities'.

JUDGMENT :

This is an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner herein, who is the son of the original claimant Smt.T.V.Leelamma in LAR.No.2/1999 on the file of Sub Court, Thiruvalla. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala, who is the judgment debtor in the above LAR.

2. The questions arise for determination are as under:

(i) Production of succession certificate as mandated under Section 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act by the legal-heirs of the decree holder, when becomes mandatory?

(ii) When legal-heirs of the deceased decree holder need not produce succession certificate in cases involving `debt' as contemplated under Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act?

(iii) Is it mandatory to produce succession certificate by the legal-heirs to proceed with execution proceedings in Land Acquisition cases to realise the compensation amount?

(iv) Is it mandatory to produce succession certificate by the legal-heirs to proceed with execution proceedings in motor accident claim cases and in cases involving grant of compensation under the Electricity Act to realise the compensation amount?

(v) Is it permissible for the surviving decree holder to proceed with execution proceedings involving `debt' as contemplated under Section 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act on his behalf and on behalf of the legal-heirs/legal representatives of the deceased decree holder?

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Advocate V. Sethunath and the learned Government Pleader Sri Denny Devassy.

4. The prayers in the Original Petition are as under:

“1. Issue a direction to the Sub Court, Thiruvalla to release the payment to the petitioner in Cheque application No.5/2022 in L.A.R.No.2/1999;

2. Issue a direction to the Sub Court, Thiruvalla not to insist for production of Legal heir certificate or Succession Certificate

3. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. The crux of the matter is that when appeal against the award passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvalla was considered by the Apex Court, enhanced compensation was granted as per Ext.P1 judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.8332-8334 of 2009 dated 19.11.2015. Accordingly, the respondent/judgment debtor deposited Rs.8,20,486/-on 17.02.2022 and the claimant died on 19.07.2021 before deposit. Copy of the death certificate is produced as Ext.P2. The husband of the original claimant died on 20.03.2001 and the claimant is survived by 3 daughters and one son. The petitioner is the son. Usha Vamadevan Thampi, Sheela Jagadeesh and Sheena Ajayan are the sisters of the petitioner. Family membership certificate in this regard is produced before this Court as Ext.P3. As per Ext.P4, the sisters above named had executed a special power of attorney on 1.6.2022 in favour of the petitioner authorising him to receive the money.

6. Accordingly, Ext.P6 cheque application was filed by the petitioner before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla.

7. The petitioner would allege that the Sub Judge is insisting for production of succession certificate to disburse the amount. Though argument notes as Ext.P7 was produced before the Sub Judge, no order has been passed in Ext.P6 application.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not a proceeding for recovery of a `debt’. Therefore, for executing the award or to receive money in execution proceedings by the heirs of the deceased/decree holder, the production of succession certificate is not necessary. Decision reported in [1998 KHC 481 : 1998 (2) KLT 912 : 1998 (2) KLJ 720 : ILR 1999 (2) Ker. 60 : AIR 1999 Ker. 56], Resilikutty Chacko v. State of Kerala, has been given emphasis in this regard.

9. In Resilikutty Chacko v. State of Kerala's case (supra), this Court considered a case where the revision petitioners in the above case one Chacko, who was the claimant in L.A.R Nos.115 and 116 of 1