DAVE, C. J.—This is a special appeal by the judgment-debtor Ganeshmal against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 25th July, 1961 dismissing his execution first appeal in limine.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

One Raj Narain Mathur obtained a money decree for Rs. 37,086/15/- from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, on 29 4-60 against the present appellant Ganeshmal. He took out execution of the said decree, but before it could be satisfied, he expired on 16-12-60. Thereafter an application under sec. 146 read with O. 21, r. 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 7-1-61 by his widow Smt. Anand Kumar, his seven sons and two daughters and another similar application was filed by his remaining three daughters at 18-2-61 and therein it was prayed that they be substituted as the legal representatives of the deceased and also be allowed to proceed with the execution petition filed by Rajnarain. These applications were opposed by the judgment-debtor on three grounds, but these objections were repelled by the executing court and it was ordered that the names of the twelve applicants be substituted in place of the deceased and that the execution proceedings would continue. Aggrieved by this order dated 8-4-61, the judgment-debtor filed an appeal, but it was summarily dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court, as pointed out above and hence this special appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged only one ground before us. It is contended by him that what was being executed by Raj Narain was admittedly a money-decree and that his legal representatives could not proceed with the execution application filed by him after his demise, without obtaining a succession certificate, because sec. 214(1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 lays down a specific bar to that effect. In support of his argument, he has referred to Tejraj Rajmal Marwadi vs. Rampyari w/o Kundanmal Marwadi (1), Shah Ramji Ladha vs. Hoti Harisangji Versalji (2), Thoma Chacko vs. Koshi Varghese (3) and P.L. Basappa vs. Siddamma (4).

4. In reply, it is urged by learned counsel for the respondents that if his clients were to file a fresh application for execution, the bar provided by sec. 214 (l)(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, might have come in their way, but since they had presented an application merely for substitution of the names in place of the deceased and had prayed for proceeding with the execution application filed by the deceased, it was not necessary for them to obtain a succession certificate and that the order of the Senior Civil Judge as also that of the learned single Judge of this Court are quite correct and the appeal should be dismissed. He relies upon Mahomed Yusuf vs. Abdur Rahim Bspari(5), Balmukand vs. Gobind Ram (6), Kaviraj Basudevanand vs. Raghubir Saran Rastogi (7), Raghubir Singh vs. Raj Rajeshwari Parsadsingh(8) and Lal Kumari Devi vs. Fulmati Kuer(9), to support his argument.

5. Since the question involved in the present appeal is based on the interpretation of sec. 2l4(l)(b) of the Indian Succession Act, it would be proper to reproduce it here in order to appreciate the arguments advanced from both the sides. It reads as under—

"Sec. 214— I

(1) 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 admistra-tion to the estate of the deceased, or

(ii) a certificate granted under sec. 31 or sec. 32 of the Administrator-Generals Act, 1913, and having the debt mentioned therein, or

(iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having

Click Here to Read the rest of this document