Requirement of succession certificate.

Narayanaswami Naidu, the defendant-judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 1221 of 1953 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore is the appellant herein.

The material facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a short compass. One Damodaraswami Naidu filed the suit O.S. No. 1221 of 1953 referred to above against the appellant herein for recovery of a document, viz., an agreement to reconvey executed by the appellant in his favour. A sum of Rs. 2,000 had to be paid for, for enforcement of the agreement to reconvey. The suit was decreed as prayed for and, in execution of that decree, Damodaraswami Naidu sought to attach the appellant’s properties and obtained a successful order therein. Thereupon the appellant filed C.M.A. No. 127 of 1960 before the first appellate Court, and a compromise was entered into and a joint memo. was filed whereby it was agreed that the executing Court might fix the sum payable to Damodaraswami Naidu as compensation under the provisions of Order 21, rule 31, Civil Procedure Code, for non-delivery of the agreement of conveyance. The executing Court fixed the compensation Rs. 2,000 but it was reduced on appeal by the Subordinate Judge to Rs. 25 ; but the compensation of Rs. 2,000 fixed by the executing Court was restored by Venkatadri, J., in C.M.S.A.No. 104 of 1963. Damodaraswami Naidu subsequently died and his wife and children have filed E.P.No. 258 of 1966, out of which the present appeal arises, for execution of the order in E.P.No. 894 of 1961 under which the executing Court had fixed the compensation at Rs. 2,000.

The appellant, relying upon the provisions of section 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) contends that the execution sought for by the legal representatives of Damodaraswami Naidu of the order in E.P.No. 894 of 1961 is incompetent without the production of a succession certificate obtained under part X of the Act. Both the Courts below have rejected his objection and hence this appeal.

On a fair construction of section 214 (1) (b) and of the decisions which had arisen under section 214, I have come to the conclusion that the contention of the appellant is untenable.

In Khadim Hussain Khan v. Shri Nawab Abdur Rahman Khan1, Randhir Singh, J., of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had held that a perusal of section 214 (1) (a) of the Succession Act showed that a succession certificate would be necessary before the passing of a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for the payment of a debt, that this presupposes the existence of a debt before the suit was instituted and that a succession certificate would be necessary if the suit was brought for the recovery of a debt existing on the date of the suit. The learned Judge had further observed that sub-section (v) of section 214 indicated that a decree passed against such a debtor could not be executed on the production of a succession certificate and that the use of the word “ such” was very significant and evidently referred to a debtor against whom a debt was due before a decree was passed and that it would not, therefore, cover a decree for costs which was not passed on the basis of any pre-existing debt, but was passed for the recovery of costs incurred during the pendency of the suit.

In Mohammed Ekram v. Union of India2, a suit was instituted by two partners against the Railway Administration for the loss of goods ascribed to the negligence of latter and one of the partners died during the pendency of the suit, and; when the legal representatives of the deceased partner sought to come on record, a contention was raised that they could not do so except on the production of a succession certificate. In paragraph 21 at page 342 of the decision cited above, the learned Judges have observed that the Subordinate Judge had rightly held that no succession certificate was necessary in that case, because, under section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, it was only in respect of a debt that such a cert